California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Luxus said:
At this point I see Jake closing this thread again. Perhaps it's a good idea to create a "XenForo's future, speculation thread" and keep all offtopic posts there?
Click to expand...
... this kind of thread is really not a good idea. Some people can't control themselves. And we can do nothing about the future of XenForo, so there's not point of debating.

To come back to the topic which is about the Case and some Juridical aspects, there's still one thing I don't understand. What is the legal reason that prevents a Developer to establish a Communication Crisis Plan? Most of companies facing big problems have now someone who deal with that.

Of course Moderators do their best to report facts, but they can't make customers not worry anymore... And this is also a fact.
Of course we just have to wait another month, but I'm not sure any more silence is the best option.

Whatever is decided, I wish good luck to developers.
 
lock.it.webp
 
Alright, this is my last post in this thread. I will stick with and believe in xenforo and all the awesome 3rd party developers till the very end. If XF wins the case in January KAM better start talking.
 
PACER Updates for: 11/7/2012

Docket Text #139 said:
Docket Text: ANSWER to Amended Complaint, [90] filed by defendant Michael Sullivan.(Deitchle, Pamela)
Click to expand...

Documents in this pack:

#139 - Answer to complaint (Second Amended Complaint or SAC) [#90]

Edit: To be more clear and to understand the answers included in #139, you need to open up #90 and match the two. #139 doesn't make much sense for some parts, unless you know what #90 says. :)

[Requested to be merged.]
 

Attachments

"Defendant expressly denies the remaining allegations of
paragraph 2 of the Second Amended Complaint to the extent that they are
intelligible."

:LOL:
 
Now that the fate of the TAC has been clarified by the court, Mike has submitted his response to the SAC. He was previously waiting for IB to file the TAC before responding. The response reads very much like Kier's response from a year ago. It's just a grocery list of denials of the legal accusations made by IB, as well as a list of legal defenses against those accusations.

It's worth noting that IB's request for a default judgment against Mike was based on the fact that he failed to respond to the SAC. Now that the confusion over the SAC / TAC is cleared up, and now that Mike has responded, I would expect that the default judgment will be denied, but we will find out on Nov 26.
 
PACER Updates for: 11/08/2012

Docket Text #140 said:
Docket Text: NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution[128] (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Fraioli, Patrick)
Click to expand...
Docket Text #141 said:
Docket Text: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge Manuel L. Real. IT IS ORDERED THAT: The Motion is denied in its entirety, and Plaintiff's request for fees and costs as sanctions is also denied in its entirety. (bp)
Click to expand...

Documents in this pack:

#140 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Order [Superseded by #141, Actual Order]
#140-1 -Proposed Order [Superseded by #141, Actual Order]
#141 - Order: Denial of Motion [Ref: #128]

Essentially, this is just the actual filing of the final order, denying the motion to dismiss. Nothing more, nothing less. No further information available at this time.

[Requested to be merged.]
 

Attachments

Confirming what we already knew... that the request to dismiss the case was denied. But this latest document also reveals that IB's counter-request for fees and costs was denied too. Basically the judge smacked down the whole dismissal thing. Nothing came of it either way.
 
Jake Bunce said:
Confirming what we already knew... that the request to dismiss the case was denied. But this latest document also reveals that IB's counter-request for fees and costs was denied too. Basically the judge smacked down the whole dismissal thing. Nothing came of it either way.
Click to expand...

Yup. He wants it to go to court and for the crap to stop once and for all. It's pretty much what I figured would happen based on prior things he has said. So January, here we come!
 
Jake Bunce said:
It's worth noting that IB's request for a default judgment against Mike was based on the fact that he failed to respond to the SAC. Now that the confusion over the SAC / TAC is cleared up, and now that Mike has responded, I would expect that the default judgment will be denied, but we will find out on Nov 26.
Click to expand...

What would a default judgement mean?
 
Mark3121 said:
What would a default judgement mean?
Click to expand...

Defaulting - as in the the plaintiff wins by default because the defendant theoretically ignored the lawsuit.
In this case, they said Mike didn't respond to the complaint and they asked for a default judgement because he didn't respond.

I'm not familiar enough with that process to understand if it applies to the whole case or just Mike.

Of course, it's a non-issue now.
 
ENF said:
Defaulting - as in the the plaintiff wins by default because the defendant theoretically ignored the lawsuit.
In this case, they said Mike didn't respond to the complaint and they asked for a default judgement because he didn't respond.

I'm not familiar enough with that process to understand if it applies to the whole case or just Mike.

Of course, it's a non-issue now.
Click to expand...
But why Mike has not answered?
 
Allan said:
But why Mike has not answered?
Click to expand...

Allan, please see:

Jake Bunce said:
Now that the fate of the TAC has been clarified by the court, Mike has submitted his response to the SAC. He was previously waiting for IB to file the TAC before responding. The response reads very much like Kier's response from a year ago. It's just a grocery list of denials of the legal accusations made by IB, as well as a list of legal defenses against those accusations.

It's worth noting that IB's request for a default judgment against Mike was based on the fact that he failed to respond to the SAC. Now that the confusion over the SAC / TAC is cleared up, and now that Mike has responded, I would expect that the default judgment will be denied, but we will find out on Nov 26.
Click to expand...
 
Can we PLEASE have this thread moderated.
It's fine to express concern in a thoughtful way as cclaerhout did above. There is some uncretaintly on XF future because the developers have not made a solid statement to reassure us they will continue after the case.
(I think either both Kier and Mike will continue, or one will buy the other out.)

But idiotic statements like "The developers have abandoned XF" are not based on solid evidence. Some might FEEL insecure but that's not the same thing as actual information. So throwing out drama statements like that without any solid evidence is destructive drama.
It strikes a pose which I suppose is satisfying to a certain type of person, but does nothing helpful for others. The cause for concern about XF is obvious. But it's not "doomed" and playing around with people's anxiety as a personal ego boost is simply cruel.
Nor do the developers deserve it nor do the moderators. Better announcements would be welcome but fighting the case comes first. I imagine it's impossibly hard for the guys to even imagine having a future right now. You get stuck in tunnel vision so only the struggle in the present exists.
Maybe they don't want to make a public commitment they don't feel absolutely sure right now they could keep because the future for them is unreal. I know what that's like. From my own experience I know that once you do get through you CAN carry on with the project which has become a weary burden. It starts to look different.

But\meanwhile please let's have a firmer hand. Instead of locking the thread AFTER it becomes offensive, moderate it BEFORE that happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom