California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
Stuart Wright
Well-known member
I was joking.
Morgain
Well-known member
Pro bono. Legal help free - most good lawyers do a % of this esp. if cases are interesting - widens their experience portfolio.
ENF
Well-known member
Pro Bono: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
See the other link above for Pro Se. (self-representation)
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Anyone who represents themselves has a fool for both a client and their lawyer.
Should the case be dismissed, all damages as well as legal fees are paid by Internet Brands (though it wouldn't surprise me they will fight XenForo on this one tooth and nail). Any money XenForo, Kier, Mike and Ashley spent on legal fees comes straight back to them. Any damage money award to XenForo, Kier, Mike and Ashley will be split based on a percentage awarded to counsel and XenForo, Kier, Mike and Ashley.
That's certainly the case in some jurisdictions, but my understanding is that in the USA/California that's not necessarily the norm, and XF/KAM will need to present a fairly convincing argument in order to recover their fees?
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
It depends ALWAYS on the outcome of the case. For example, if the case is settle out of court, then yes, you would have to present an argument why only one side should foot the legal bills.
Remember the pendulum swings both ways and sometimes it is in the middle. I would argue in this case that the burden would be on Internet Brands, who will likely argue why each side should take their own legal bills and swallow their own legal costs. (Jadmperry would probably know this one better)
It is however my observation that the courts generally frown upon the plaintiffs using the courts to bully defendants or sue everyone and anyone possible and burden them with unnecessary debt. To minimize that, they usually make the plaintiffs cover the legal costs of the defense should the plaintiff loose or the case is thrown out of courts as a stern warning to other potential litigants to not abuse the court system
jadmperry
Well-known member
The normal rule in the US is that each party bears their own costs for attorneys fees and costs of litigation. However, there are many statutes that provide for "fee shifting" for a prevailing party. That is the situation in this case, that some of the provisions in controversy provide for fee shifting. You have to look at the statute for any specific criteria for recovery of attorney's fees and/or costs. I don't have time at the moment to post more. If I have a chance later, I will give a more detailed synopsis. However, in this case, if XF wins, I think the court will award attorney fees and costs.
David_
Active member
Couldn't this lead to another long drawn out battle with XenForo trying to collect the court costs it's been awarded?
It's one thing to win and get those costs, but it's totally different to get IB to pay. I'd expect them to drag their feet even more if this happens and leaves XenForo crippled even longer.
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
Long story short: No.
I see it more likely that Internet Brands will refuse to pay, or conveniently forgetting to pay, allowing XenForo to foreclose on their property
OSS 117
Well-known member
[Expletive] No!
we_are_borg
Well-known member
Is there any news from court that was held yesterday.
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
Jake Bunce
Well-known member
I've one stupid question: why the trial is in the United States and not in England?
It would make more sense: vBulletin Solutions is registred in UK and that's the same for XenForo Ltd.
Sorry if the answer has already been given, I could not find it
vBS = United States
XF = England
XF argued for lack of jurisdiction when vBS sued them in California but that motion was denied so the California case continues.
There is also the Jelsoft entity which is based in England and is the original owner of vB. IB claims that all assets and rights were transferred from Jelsoft to vBS, but despite this IB is using Jelsoft to sue XF in England as well.
Insy
Well-known member
Thanks for the reply. I was misled because it's written on http://www.vbulletin.com/about-us/:
I guess court fees shall be higher than in England.
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
Insy
Well-known member
It is also possibleOr more likely vBSI knew they would loose in the UK Courts
In many cases, the courts have favored local companies. Just look at the Apple-Samsung lawsuit.
jadmperry
Well-known member
Not normally...it would be a quick round of motions in the trial court, most likely. It is possible that an appeal of any award could follow. But, this is not something that would normally drag out.
As far as "getting" IB to pay, there are many mechanisms to compel enforcement. (Liens, judicial transfer of assets to satisfy judgment, fines, contempt citations, etc). It is not that hard to get a company with substantial assets to pay. (It can be quite difficult to get a party with little or no assets to pay- but that is not this situation. I don't really understand that the sentiment or idea that I think is being expressed, which sounds something like this- "Sure, you won in court...now make me pay." If it were so easy to avoid payments and the enforcement of legal decisions, you would not have any type of functioning legal system. No one would bother with court and lawyers would be out of business).
we_are_borg
Well-known member
I made the same mistake as you. The actual date is November not October
Serious i really need to learn to read with glasses (there right beside me put i don't like it).
- Status