California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
Fufu
Well-known member
someone must be able to see this. I get image place holders in IE9. oh well i give up.
GofD
Well-known member
Works fine here.
Thanks for posting, Shamil!
This is what it reads:
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
On April 4, 2011, Defendants XenForo Limited’s and Kier Darby’s Motion
to Dismiss the Seventh and Eighth Claims of the First Amended Complaint for
Failure to State a Claim was heard by the above-entitled court. Patrick Fraioli
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff vBulletin Solutions, Inc. and Michael K. Grace
appeared on behalf of Defendants.
The matter having been fully briefed, argued, and considered by the Court,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the seventh and eighth claims of the First
Amended Complaint, which alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq. and
California Penal Code § 502, are dismissed with prejudice for the reasons set forth
in the moving and reply papers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
On April 4, 2011, Defendants XenForo Limited’s and Kier Darby’s Motion
to Dismiss the Seventh and Eighth Claims of the First Amended Complaint for
Failure to State a Claim was heard by the above-entitled court. Patrick Fraioli
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff vBulletin Solutions, Inc. and Michael K. Grace
appeared on behalf of Defendants.
The matter having been fully briefed, argued, and considered by the Court,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the seventh and eighth claims of the First
Amended Complaint, which alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq. and
California Penal Code § 502, are dismissed with prejudice for the reasons set forth
in the moving and reply papers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fufu
Well-known member
Peggy
in memoriam 2016
Thanks.
DoctorWatsOn
Well-known member
dutchbb
Well-known member
So VBSI is ordered to pay security for costs.
The big question, is how much
As generally the higher the ammount ordered by the court, the weaker they think the plaintiff's possition, the higher the ammount is.
All I can say is way to go XF's legal team, looks like left right and center they are on the offensive and putting VBSI onto the back foot.
The big question, is how much
As generally the higher the ammount ordered by the court, the weaker they think the plaintiff's possition, the higher the ammount is.All I can say is way to go XF's legal team, looks like left right and center they are on the offensive and putting VBSI onto the back foot.
yavuz
Well-known member
So VBSI is ordered to pay security for costs.
The big question, is how much
All I can say is way to go XF's legal team, looks like left right and center they are on the offensive and putting VBSI onto the back foot.
Smart moves. Hope that battle by battle we're gonna win this war
Reeve of Shinra
Well-known member
So VBSI is ordered to pay security for costs.
The big question, is how much
All I can say is way to go XF's legal team, looks like left right and center they are on the offensive and putting VBSI onto the back foot.
Where was this stated?
Do you know of the costs ammount? Allowed to share?
Reeve of Shinra
Well-known member
Yep totally missed the obvious here! good work though!
I wish the UK Court Records access was as open as that of the US, with PACER, CM/ECF etc.
Indeed.
Security for costs is the money which a claimant has to pay into court, or guarantee he has to give, as a condition of bringing or continuing a claim.
- Status