California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
In this latest document Pamela raises every point that I have made in the last two weeks. Pamela points out that the TAC was in fact granted in part which means IB is expected to submit an amendment (reference). She says IB's assertion that an amendment is not expected of them is at odds with IB's own legal argument in favor of an amendment (reference). She says IB is twisting the words of the court from the May 21 hearing to support their claim that the TAC was denied when it wasn't (reference). By clarifying the fate of the TAC Pamela also opposes the basis for a default judgment against Mike which relies on IB's misunderstanding about the fate of the TAC (reference). She cites the fact that IB has blamed everyone but themselves for their failure to prosecute (reference). She reiterates her argument that XenForo would suffer prejudice if the case is not dismissed because it is too late (given the backlog caused by IB's delays) to save the current trial date on January 15, 2013 (reference).

Looks pretty solid to me.
 
The latest document by IB basically is Pam's golden ticket. Once again, new claims are made, delay is asked for, new evidence and new key witnesses are presented.

The witness in this case is the local village idiot (David McHenry) who sends a screenshot of a conversation. If that is what IB Calls new crucial evidence, it shows how horrible the irrellevant "Evidence" they have is.

David might just have given Pam the key to getting the case closed, as it reaffirms what she stated before. IBs only tactic is delaying based on new evidence and new witnesses. IBs lawyers seem to be too incompetent to realize they basically did exactly what Pam said they would do.

Gotta love Pam's dry sarcasm, too:

Why so much activity in the past two weeks when, in 13 months, Plaintiss "progress" was to file two motion for leave to amend?"
Click to expand...

Because Plaintiff has been caught in a lie, the backup plan was to twist one of
the Court’s statements at the May 21, 2012 hearing into something that it clearly is
not.
Click to expand...
 
we_are_borg said:
Under that rule they can held the lawyer, firm or other party responsible, but they can't use a money penalty how i read it, so that would mean sanction for the firm or lawyer or imprisonment.
Click to expand...

They can impose a money penalty. Here is a case that discusses this:

"The language of Rule 11 provides no guidelines for discerning what sanction is best suited to a particular type of violation. "Rule 11, while requiring the court to impose 'an appropriate sanction' for an infraction of the rule's standard, neither defines nor delimits the types of sanctions that may be 'appropriate.'" Anderson, 900 F.2d at 394 n.6. Rule 11 "'is not a fee-shifting statute in the sense that the loser pays. It is a law imposing sanctions if counsel files with improper motives or inadequate investigation.'" Triad Assocs., 892 F.2d at 596 (quoting Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928, 932 (7th Cir. 1989)); see also Cooter & Gell, 110 S. Ct. at 2462.

In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for a district court to impose a sanction in the form of a fine. See Donaldson, 819 F.2d at 1557. "The district judge is free to fine an attorney for the court's time, but that fine must be based on court costs and paid to the clerk's office." Magnus Elecs., Inc. v. Masco Corp., 871 F.2d 626, 634 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 891, 107 L. Ed. 2d 188, 110 S. Ct. 237 (1989). In the case before us, the district court added a footnote to its memorandum order stating that Rule 42(b) did not apply because the intent of the "fine" was to compensate the court for its time and was not in the nature of a criminal punishment.

Rule 11 does not permit a court to impose an arbitrary sum on the sanctioned attorney or party "merely to emphasize a point." Magnus Elecs., 871 F.2d at 634. The court's use of the word "fine" in describing the sanction imposed on Ms. Torres is unfortunate. We agree with the Ninth Circuit that the term "monetary sanction" is more descriptive and appropriate in differentiating a penalty of this kind from the common association of the word "fine" with a criminal penalty. See Miranda, 710 F.2d at 521. However, the standards employed by the district court for fixing the amount of monetary sanction in relating it to excess court time expended in deciding the issue, were appropriate. See White, 908 F.2d at 683-84."
Eisenberg v. University of New Mexico, 936 F.2d 1131, 1136-1137 (10th Cir. N.M. 1991)
 
we_are_borg said:
Thanks Jadmperry going to read that see what the judge did and why.
Click to expand...

This is just one case....I only posted it to show that money sanctions can be applied. There are many other cases with different facts that have differing outcomes. Only point is don't read that one case as the end all and be all on the issue.
 
I love it.

lol.webp



Shes mocking VBSI because she also knows exactly how their claims would go down like a lead balloon in the UK courts.

Way to go Pam! Did VBSI just get kerbstomped :D?
 
Slavik said:
I love it.

View attachment 36133


Shes mocking VBSI because she also knows exactly how their claims would go down like a lead balloon in the UK courts.

Way to go Pam! Did VBSI just get kerbstomped :D?
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about that.. on the other hand, she's also inviting them to continue that lawsuit, which is maybe not the best of ideas?
 
jadmperry said:
These things can be difficult to understand for those who have no background in the area of law. So, there is tension here. It is likely the same with any field where specialized knowledge is important (whether it be PHP coder, accountant, plumber, mechanic, or architect). You can only simplify things so much or else the ideas lose their true meaning.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Feynman explaining how magnets work,
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Morgain said:
That's been analysed. See above. Not going to happen.
KAM may well get their costs but there is no sign of a claim for damages. Such a claim would be yet another court case ... our boys want to get on with XF.
Click to expand...

my two cents:
If the case was won/dropped on xenforo's part, KAM can relax and move on while Ashley hands IB's ass back to them.
 
Sador said:
I've been thinking about that.. on the other hand, she's also inviting them to continue that lawsuit, which is maybe not the best of ideas?
Click to expand...

Yeah, continue in the UK after it being thrown out of court in the US for failure to produce evidence and wasting the courts' time. I'm no lawyer, but even I would think the UK court would tell IB to **** off if they come looking to start drama all over again.
 
whynot said:
No,it's not a good idea.
In Hollywood movies it works for heroes.
Click to expand...
The UK court system is a lot different. To continue with that lawsuit, IB would have to put down a large deposit, and after losing the US lawsuit they would almost certainly be knocked down by UK courts. UK courts don't tolerate BS as much as the US does I hear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom