California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, I see someone already posted the full motion.

Kier actually contacted me about getting the full document, which I sent him.

Still haven't read it all yet....
 
I imagine we'll see a motion of some kind from Internet Brands within a day or two. They're trying to draw this whole thing out to kill the competition.
 
Hopefully we get an update from Kier whilst he is around.

It can't be nice for him to see the current state of this community with its constant bickering.
 
Hopefully we get an update from Kier whilst he is around.

It can't be nice for him to see the current state of this community with its constant bickering.

He hasn't shown much interest in quite some time so I'm not sure why today would be any different?
 
Chris I have never commented on personal matters, I've never commented on personal matters on here, ever. Please don't label me with those that spread rumour and mock the situation.
Sorry.

That wasn't my intention. My bad.
 
My initial look at cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit show a majority of the case affirm dismissal if the District Court orders it.

"The district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A trial court's dismissal under Rule 41(b) will not be disturbed unless we have a "definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors." Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260.

Price v. United States DOJ, 462 Fed. Appx. 694 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2011)"

The one case in my cursory look overturned the dismissal because the trial court did not consider the relevant factors (cited in the motion) for a Rule 41(b) dismissal.

My overall take? It is going to be up to the judge. But, I would not be surprised if either the judge dismisses, but more likely, lays out a stern warning with strict guidelines for IB/counsel for IB to abide by...and if they miss complying with those guidelines/orders, then a 41(b) dismissal may be in the offing. The other alternative that I could see would be dismissal without prejudice (though, for reasons of judicial economy, I think this is not a first alternative). However, I do think dismissal with prejudice is definitely on the table.
 
I think this makes complete sense of the KAM team going into retreat, taking a holiday and disconnecting for a while. This call to dismiss is a big move to make and would have taken a ;pt of thought and consultation with solicitors.

From my reading of this whole thread which I re read in the last week, if the USA case is either dismissed Nov 5 or IB loses on Jan 15, either of which are the predictable outcomes, the likelihood of a UK case getting going is zilch.
UK courts don't follow a USA ruling of course but it would be known and IB would have a tough time demonstrating they are betting situated here. The court system here is stricter on this kind of messing about case anyway.

Cool timing by the way - Nov 5 for dismissal would mean fireworks celebrations all over Britain!​
graphics-fireworks-658738.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: vVv
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom