Basically it ensures that when xenforo wins, Jelsoft will not be able to wriggle out of paying xenforos costs.
California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
Basically it ensures that when xenforo wins, Jelsoft will not be able to wriggle out of paying xenforos costs.
Paul M
Well-known member
Thanks.
EQnoble
Well-known member
Yes but I would think that since in the UK the case was determined already it is just about waiting for reimbursement within the time the court has allowed. Right?
The US case would have to wait until VBS inc (plaintiff) fails to prove their claims but then generally speaking the judge awards court costs and fees incurred by the defendant be reimbursed by the plaintiff who fails to make a case.
ARealRiley
Active member
Mainly, it serves to defeat the SLAPP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
Chimpie
Well-known member
Wait, the UK case was "determined" already. What does that mean?
There seems to be a fair bit of confusion here, so this is the plain English translation:
'Applications' are the English equivalent of 'motions' in US legal parlance.
There are no assets in the UK that the Court could order to be paid to the defendants in the event that they win. The application for security of costs, asked the Court to force the claimants to pay a large sum of money to the Court to be used to pay the defendants' costs, avoiding the possibility that the claimants could lose or abandon the case and walk away without meeting their financial obligations.
This concerns the English lawsuit, rather than the one in California.
'Applications' are the English equivalent of 'motions' in US legal parlance.
In English civil law, the loser of each round of litigation is required to pay the winner's costs, including attorney's fees. The Court must have the power to compel the losing party to do this.
There are no assets in the UK that the Court could order to be paid to the defendants in the event that they win. The application for security of costs, asked the Court to force the claimants to pay a large sum of money to the Court to be used to pay the defendants' costs, avoiding the possibility that the claimants could lose or abandon the case and walk away without meeting their financial obligations.
The said they didn't want to.
We won.
As the application was contested and the matter was heard in Court, costs were involved, and with failure of their opposition, the claimants were ordered to pay the costs incurred by the defendants in making the application.
DoctorWatsOn
Well-known member
EQnoble
Well-known member
I think you are confused....SLAPP is about censorship, Shamil was talking nothing of that as I understand he was talking about court fees basically and the system in place in the UK where as I understand by reading it says that when you make a claim against someone you have to put up a bond if you will and if you lose defendants can recover costs from that by making a claim themselves for security costs and if it falls under certain criteria they can be awarded the amount claimed.
I mean that I was under the impression that the case in the UK has already had a ruling and the case was dismissed or so I thought. Which would explain this and it's .gov.uk domain extension. I just try and put two and two together. I am just another user just as yourself though so I cannot tell you if I am 100% right and I am surely not an attorney.
___edit____
I was ninja'd lol
Good to know I wasn't off-base
No, the case in the UK continues, as does the one in California.
EQnoble
Well-known member
huh..what is going on I stopped following that as I thought that was over. Wow I misread something a long time ago..... Hmm...<taps head and looks confused> must have had a memory lapse, time to play catchup... <facepalm>
Well that sucks.
CTXMedia
Well-known member
I interpreted that as XF saying to the court "hang on, VBS Inc. don't have any cash or assets so if the lose they won't be able to pay. Can the court please bind them to covering the costs if they lose the case/claims?"
VBS Inc. tried to get out of it, and the court said "No, XF are right, you should be bound-over by the court to pay if you lose!" and so found in XF's favour.
Or have I got that wrong?
It's not about the case per say, just making sure that XF's costs are covered by IB if XF win.
Cheers,
Shaun
VBS Inc. tried to get out of it, and the court said "No, XF are right, you should be bound-over by the court to pay if you lose!" and so found in XF's favour.
Or have I got that wrong?
It's not about the case per say, just making sure that XF's costs are covered by IB if XF win.
Cheers,
Shaun
Tigratrus
Well-known member
That's the best news I've heard in quite a while!
Congrats to XF Ltd, that's fantastic to hear.
I'm hoping that IB bows out of the whole UK lawsuit now that they know that they will have to foot the whole bill.
That would be GREAT ammunition for Pam to use on the CA side. I'd love to see how that would reinforce the argument that the whole suit is nothing but an attempt to bushwhack a startup competitor with a spurious lawsuit rather than compete in the open market.
Awesome new... Whoo Hoo!
:: snoopy dance ::
Congrats to XF Ltd, that's fantastic to hear.
I'm hoping that IB bows out of the whole UK lawsuit now that they know that they will have to foot the whole bill.
That would be GREAT ammunition for Pam to use on the CA side. I'd love to see how that would reinforce the argument that the whole suit is nothing but an attempt to bushwhack a startup competitor with a spurious lawsuit rather than compete in the open market. Awesome new... Whoo Hoo!
:: snoopy dance ::
Aren't attorneys paid hourly? How could the Court know the winner's cost beforehand? Lawers' fees can add up to a huge amount, millions in some cases.
It is upon the parties to make an estimation and the Court to decide if the figure is reasonable and probable.
MGSteve
Well-known member
The key I guess is to try and get this ASAP. IB won't want to abandon the UK case because that could reflect on the US case. They also won't be keen to stump up the security for the UK case, knowing more than likely that they won't win and thus will be out of pocket anyway. However, to counter that, putting up a few hundred thousand dollars isn't going to be too hard for a company like IB I guess, even if they subsequently abandon the case and get it back.
But ASAP in legal circles is counted in weeks, if not months, not days
Bear in mind that applications for security of costs are the exception, not the rule. Most of the time there is no need to make such an estimation, and costs are determined after the conclusion of the litigation.
- Status