California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does the other requests granted or are they going to be decided later on ?

And does this have any impact on us ?
 
Mert said:
Does the other requests granted or are they going to be decided later on ?

And does this have any impact on us ?
Click to expand...

Until we see the documents, we cant say exactly.

One would assume, the counts that have been dismissed, have been done for good reason, those which havent, the court thinks it needs further evidence and exploration before deciding.
 
Slavik said:
Until we see the documents, we cant say exactly.

One would assume, the counts that have been dismissed, have been done for good reason, those which havent, the court thinks it needs further evidence and exploration before deciding.
Click to expand...

And knowing Internet Brands and their lawyer minions, they will likely appeal that decision to the 9th Circuit...
 
Kier/Mike/Ashley -
I understand if you can't answer, but I'm curious how much time per day/week you have to deal with this foolishness? I would imagine the bulk of it is on Pam at this point.
 
Pope Viper said:
Kier/Mike/Ashley -
I understand if you can't answer, but I'm curious how much time per day/week you have to deal with this foolishness? I would imagine the bulk of it is on Pam at this point.
Click to expand...
The answer: Ask yourself how much time you would spend on avoiding a million dollar corporation from ruining your life and to protect your livelihood and your family?
 
TheBigK said:
May I request someone to summarize the discussion (at least the important updates) o_O?
Click to expand...
Its actually pretty simple...
  • Internet Brands made up a whole lot of crap the day before XF launched, announcing it had done all these things wrong legally, and how XF and staff have frauded VB, stolen its code, blah blah blah.
  • XF have had some aspects tossed out already.
  • Internet Brands have made up more crap, lost most employees of their own VB business, lost a good majority of their customer base, and continue to launch legal nonsense with no evidence or substance.
  • XF lawyers continue to have most aspects tossed out before even reaching court.
  • IB continue to try and make crap up to drag all this out legally, achieving nothing other than trying to cripple a startup competitor because they did it better than VB.
  • XF continue to kick their arse in law, and really just have to wait until IB finally get some balls to let it go to court, which they continue to create excuses for nearing each court date, because that would end their nonsense and close the door on trying to bankrupt XF.
That is about the guts of it all thus far... absolutely zero evidence by VB to date, just empty words and accusations, zero evidence.

Added: That seriously is not biased to XF... I have read every aspect of this since beginning, and not once is there actual proof provided from IB to date. Just accusations and complete nonsense... anything and everything they can literally think up to drag this out financially.

Some aspects the judge is not ruling on, and wants a jury to listen and decide based on facts presented to them, if they can be provided... again, none yet provided when requested by legal or otherwise.
 
Okay, I read the whole document as well and XF's case looks very strong. I can't even believe that IB folks are actually referring to the 'Notes Written On Whiteboard By Kier' :LOL:.

Can someone clarify the confusion regarding the cases in UK & US? Two different cases, right?
 
TheBigK said:
Okay, I read the whole document as well and XF's case looks very strong. I can't even believe that IB folks are actually referring to the 'Notes Written On Whiteboard By Kier' :LOL:.

Can someone clarify the confusion regarding the cases in UK & US? Two different cases, right?
Click to expand...

Two different cases, pretty much the same content. UK case seems stalled, but I don't have ANY information on it.
 
Joe Rosenblum refusing to testify under oath has apparently been big news in this case. However, am I correctly understanding the significance of his decision to do so?:

Mr. Rosenblum: Kier definitely stole all these trade secrets. How I derived this knowledge is so valuable that it is the basis of the lawsuit and will undoubtedly show Kier in the wrong.
Judge: OK! Let me hear the details.
Mr. Rosenblum: You know what, I would rather not disclose the crux of my case at this most opportune moment even though, if I have the details as I say, sharing them can only bring awesome results for IB. I would rather draw this out for a super secret, super special awesome reason the wisdom for which will negate the perceived stupidity of withholding now once it is revealed.

Am I on track, or do I grossly misunderstand?
 
Not sure. It depends on when the above dialogue occurs. Right now, it seems to have gotten a pass, having essentially done this at pre-trial level. This could be a discovery violation, but I am not sure this point has been pressed as much as it might have been (whether this was a tactical decision on the part of XF's attorneys or not, I can't say). However, if the hypothetical (well, sort of hypothetical, in some sense, this is what happened) occurs at trial, well, there will be no evidence and XF will win, perhaps with a motion for summary judgment or a directed verdict.
 
Well, with regards to claims being dismissed:

Claim 01, Declaratory Relief of Ownership of Software: denied
Claim 02, Misappropriation of Trade secrets: denied
Claim 03, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage: denied
Claim 04, Breach of Contract: denied
Claim 05, Breach of Duty of Loyalty: denied
Claim 06, Violation of CFAA: denied
Claim 07, Tortuous Interference with Contractual Relations: denied
Claim 08, Violations of California Business and Professional Code: granted
Claim 09, Conversion: denied
Claim 10, Conspiracy: granted
Claim 11, Violation with regards to RICO: granted

Motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff failing to join a necessary party under FRCP (19)a: denied
Motion for more definite statement under FRCP (12)e: denied

http://www.shamil.la/vbulletin-solutions-vs-xenforo-limited-etc/#100
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom