California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really hope this case is settled soon. This hanging over the heads of XenForo owners is completely bogus and the judge denying the dismissal requests is stupid.
 
Steve Moore said:
I really hope this case is settled soon. This hanging over the heads of XenForo owners is completely bogus and the judge denying the dismissal requests is stupid.
Click to expand...

jadmyperry summed it up quite nicely as to why it wasn't all dismissed.


jadmperry said:
Yes, essentially, that is my best guess as to why other claims were not dismissed. In the US, there is a strong preference to allow people their "day in court" and if there is any plausible way the plaintiff can prevail (at this stage, based on a presumption that the allegations are true), then the case will normally be allowed to proceed to trial. (It is very rare to actually get to trial as most rational parties will usually work something out by agreement prior to trial; given that it appears VBSI has business motives aside from the apparently weak merits, I think this is unlikely in this case). But, once at trial, the presumptions that the plaintiffs have to their advantage now disappear. The judge is unlikely to dismiss before VBSI has a chance to present its evidence. But, given that the evidence appears to be completely lacking, at the close of their case, it is possible that the judge will dismiss claims. If he does not at that point, he could also do the same after XF has presented their case in rebuttal. (There are actually a ton of permutations...the judge could wait until a jury rules, and still dismiss claims even after an adverse decision, if, for example, as a matter of law, the claims are not supported by the evidence or must fail as a matter of law. There could even be post-judgment motions that result in dismissal). The point is, once the evidence has been heard at trial, the policy issues with allowing them to present their claims go away- and there is generally a higher comfort level with dismissing claims that have been allowed to be fully presented and argued.
Click to expand...
 
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
THE HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE PRESIDING
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 17, 2011
Plaintiff's motion to amend: granted :(
 
Reading the transcript! I never come across transcripts of major cases like this! O_O

- Darby had access to vBulletin computers, and the lawyer [ahem, Internet Brands] thinks that because of his access, Mr. Darby has knowledge of vBulletin's future from the moment he had started development of vB4. That's my understanding from the start.

This means that the lawyer for vB is accusing Darby and co. of stealing company information which actually means criminal wrongdoing. I think this part is where iB is trying to go after now. It's not civil, I wondered why iB is pursuing the criminal charges, this answers my questions, possibly others.

I know that insider trading is criminal, so this is something that is the grounds that iB is going after.

RICO is usually a mass investigation of criminal wrongdoing - this means that they're looking at the ENTIRE company. If you pay attention to last season's Sons of Anarchy carefully in each episode, it means that whoever's behind the RICO's operation is targeting the group involved. In this case, it's xenForo.

- The court reads the case like this: iB did not delay at all in relation to the counts of wrong doing. I can see that in page 5 line 19, but we all know that's bull$#!t.

- In page 5 line 23 onwards, the court finds iB not trying to delay "justice" nor trying to push the costs of litigation beyond the defendants' [xenforo's] capital class. What this means is that the court THINKS that iB isn't trying to delay the case, or trying to increase the costs of litigation.

- Finally, as mentioned earlier in court papers that was documented by Shamil, the court finds that Darby and co. mis-used the contract, and went outside of the [means of the] contract they signed.

Then in closing, the lawyer tries to be cute by delaying the case: He states to the judge that this instance isn't a pretrial, and then soon the trial.

I dunno about you, but I quote;
Excuse me, Your Honor. May I ask -- on a housekeeping matter, we're supposed to be having a pretrial conference and a trial very shortly
Click to expand...
Sounds like delaying, to me.
 
I'm not sure that I like what I'm reading from the Judge... He comes across as biased in favor of IB.
 
Bain said:
I'm not sure that I like what I'm reading from the Judge... He comes across as biased in favor of IB.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, he still has to (and should) base his final decision on strong evidence or else there would be consequences. From what we've seen, evidence isn't IB's strongpoint so far.
 
Bain said:
I'm not sure that I like what I'm reading from the Judge... He comes across as biased in favor of IB.
Click to expand...
I don't read that at all... actually I read that he is simply not ruling anything out and allowing both parties there day in court to be heard with all facts and rebuttals as presented at that time... and if jury, allowing the jury to hear all such information and decide based on facts presented.

Lets face it... lots of accusations and such always come through in preliminary information, and a judge cannot accurately rule anything out without speaking with all parties under oath, and allowing both sides to question any witnesses and such. All of this cannot be done in back and forth he said, she said, preliminary paperwork nonsense. The only aspects that can be ruled out prior to court is where the burden or proof, if exists, has not been met in documentary evidence. Those have been ruled out in some aspects where IB have attempted to make claims without documentary evidence to prove the proofs.
 
COMING SERVICE OUTAGES: There will be nationwide maintenance on the PACER system Saturday, Januaray 14, 2012. The disruptions will begin at 9 AM ET and continue until 6 PM ET. PACER users may have sessions terminated or experience difficulty logging into the system. We apologize for the inconvenience.
For a complete list go to CM/ECF Outages
 
No fears. It seems as if there's just nothing to report at the time. I mean, we can only point out how looney the original premise of the lawsuit is so many times, haha. I do sincerely hope this case becomes a distant memory sooner rather than later, but unfortunately IB seems to intend to carry this out for as long as they can.
 
Are there any examples of similar cases to look at to see how long they were dragged on or is it just too specific to compare it to other cases?
 
Impossible to compare- there are just too many variables. Earlier, somewhere in this thread I think, I posted a link to a report of the Federal Judiciary that laid out average case processing times (complaint to trial). It was a matter of years, but I don't remember off the top of my head what the exact figure was in the California Northern District. Even so, I think the "averages" are useless. Some cases move faster, others slower.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom