California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheLaw said:
There is an old lawyer joke that sums this up.

An attorney in Texas decides to bring his son to the office to show the kid what he does. An old man walks in to the office and asks to speak to the attorney about a problem he has. He says:

"My name is Domingo. I worked for a man named Rodriguez for 20 years in my village. He says to me that in exchange for my service, he will give me all the cows on the farm when he dies. His son Montana refuses to give me the cows."

The attorney responds: "By the end of the day, we'll have those cows!"

The old man thanks the attorney and leaves. About 2 hours later a well dressed young man walks in and asks to speak to the attorney. He says:

"My name is Montana. My father had a man Domingo who worked for him for 20 years and says that he owns all the cows on our farm. This is not true. The cows are mine."

The attorney responds: "By the end of the day, we'll have those cows!"
After the man thanks the attorney and leaves, the confused son turns to his father and asks him to explain what is going on. His father turns to him and says:

"Son, by the end of the day, we'll have those cows!"
Click to expand...

You can't make lawyer jokes, your a lawyer.
 
Just to recap, all that means is that IB is being allowed to amend their complaint.

This is something that is liberally granted (first, the rules suggest that it should be granted liberally, and if it were denied, it creates a much more complicated and delayed procedure where the plaintiff might appeal, or re-file a separate action, and it basically makes it more efficient for the court to allow this).

I have written about this earlier, but it is also preferred to let things go to trial so long as there is any plausible theory on which they might win. Nothing about this ruling should be construed as speaking to the strength of IBs case. The law favors giving plaintiffs their day in court; that is all I would take from the court's ruling.
 
jadmperry said:
I have written about this earlier, but it is also preferred to let things go to trial so long as there is any plausible theory on which they might win. Nothing about this ruling should be construed as speaking to the strength of IBs case. The law favors giving plaintiffs their day in court; that is all I would take from the court's ruling.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. This should not be seen as any "loss" by the defendants. It's fairly routine that amendments like these are granted so as not to grant a plaintiff the opportunity to appeal and claim that they were denied being able to present their case in court (even if weak.)
 
TheLaw said:
Agreed 100%. This should not be seen as any "loss" by the defendants. It's fairly routine that amendments like these are granted so as not to grant a plaintiff the opportunity to appeal and claim that they were denied being able to present their case in court (even if weak.)
Click to expand...
jadmperry said:
Just to recap, all that means is that IB is being allowed to amend their complaint.

This is something that is liberally granted (first, the rules suggest that it should be granted liberally, and if it were denied, it creates a much more complicated and delayed procedure where the plaintiff might appeal, or re-file a separate action, and it basically makes it more efficient for the court to allow this).

I have written about this earlier, but it is also preferred to let things go to trial so long as there is any plausible theory on which they might win. Nothing about this ruling should be construed as speaking to the strength of IBs case. The law favors giving plaintiffs their day in court; that is all I would take from the court's ruling.
Click to expand...

However, the longer this lawsuit drags out, doesn't it take its toll on the defendants? It's a bit of a David (defendants) vs. Goliath (Internet Brands) type situation. The war chest for Internet Brands is far larger than Kier, Mike, Ashley combined. Even if you factor in Mert, Colin, and Darren, the combined resources of everyone here no where nearly matches what Internet Brands has.
 
As expected. We no longer have hearing dates.


Due to this Court’s ruling on October 17, 2011 Granting in
Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, and Granting Plaintiff Leave to File an Amended Complaint, the Court
NOW VACATES the dates of the Final Pre-Trial Conference
of October 24, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. and Jury Trial of November 29, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. The Court will re-set the dates for the pre- trial conference and trial at a later date following the filing
of the amended complaint and whatever further litigation follows that filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
 
ManagerJosh said:
However, the longer this lawsuit drags out, doesn't it take its toll on the defendants? It's a bit of a David (defendants) vs. Goliath (Internet Brands) type situation. The war chest for Internet Brands is far larger than Kier, Mike, Ashley combined. Even if you factor in Mert, Colin, and Darren, the combined resources of everyone here no where nearly matches what Internet Brands has.
Click to expand...

That may be the case. This is the time when you just have to hope the truth and the right decision prevails and that this frivolous lawsuit is nipped in the bud sooner rather than later.
 
ManagerJosh said:
However, the longer this lawsuit drags out, doesn't it take its toll on the defendants? It's a bit of a David (defendants) vs. Goliath (Internet Brands) type situation. The war chest for Internet Brands is far larger than Kier, Mike, Ashley combined. Even if you factor in Mert, Colin, and Darren, the combined resources of everyone here no where nearly matches what Internet Brands has.
Click to expand...

Sure, that is right, it does take a toll...unfortunately, there really is no recognition of this fact until the case is completed. At that point, legal fees can be applied for by XF (assuming, as I do, that they prevail). An imperfect system, to be sure, but that is the reality.
 
ManagerJosh said:
However, the longer this lawsuit drags out, doesn't it take its toll on the defendants? It's a bit of a David (defendants) vs. Goliath (Internet Brands) type situation. The war chest for Internet Brands is far larger than Kier, Mike, Ashley combined. Even if you factor in Mert, Colin, and Darren, the combined resources of everyone here no where nearly matches what Internet Brands has.
Click to expand...
I think its acually great publicity and shows exactly what a threat xenforo shows to vb .
 
SchmitzIT said:
The biggest threat to vB is Bob Brisco IB. But rather than admitting that, IB instead chose to take out their incompetence on the new kid on the block.
Click to expand...
vB has become the vampire on the verge of dying and once this case is over regardless who wins the stake will be jammed into it's heart. vB Sales and other stuff have seen an all new downlow before xF even came out and it was all thanks to vB4. They just want to take someone with them in this case. Once their superiors find out whats going on . ."It's all xenforo's fault but we sued them good!" is what the silly people runnig vB are trying to do once the investors find out so they are not fired.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom