California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
CTXMedia
Well-known member
ENF
Well-known member
Electronic Court Records (PACER)
Caliburn
Well-known member
Like I said... he has probably been ordered by his legal counsel to remain quiet. It's unfortunate but not unheard of.
Insy
Well-known member
At contrary, it is best suited to speak for XenForo Ltd..
Because it is his interest.
jadmperry
Well-known member
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.
"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.
You old romantic, youOn the day they win this case I will take out my girlfriend for a glass of wine (or two) - and this is from someone rarely drinking Alcohol.
Sador
Well-known member
Taking her out might, though..Romatic has nothing to do with alcohol
Morgain
Well-known member
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.
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!
- Status