California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carlos said:
It doesn't sound like it. If I was the judge, I would have rejected the first "delay." I would have thrown the case out on the second delay.
Click to expand...

There has been one delay in the trial date, after which the judge indicated he doesn't want anymore delays. There has been no second delay.
 
Jake Bunce said:
There has been one delay in the trial date, after which the judge indicated he doesn't want anymore delays. There has been no second delay.
Click to expand...
Well, we've been at this case for what? 2 years now? How long does a judge need to decide before "Okay, that's enough! Case dismissed!"
 
Now we need an announcement detailing what happens next. If there is going to be no further development till January we need to know sooner rather than later.
 
Lee said:
So Kier, ill ask again - what happens now for your customers and development?
Click to expand...
It doesn't mean anything... because the dismissal was only a shot at a quick ending, it was still likely that the trial date would be upheld and that IB be allowed to present their so called evidence, of which they haven't yet produced. The trial was always the likely ending. The trial will also help to alleviate further issues when IB attempt to prolong this by then shifting it to the UK. If they're found stupid in the US court, their motions for trial and such will get tossed from the UK system before they make it to court, because they will have to provide evidence of a specific law being broken, of which will be either proved or disproved in the US trial.

January is the main focus.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
It doesn't mean anything... because the dismissal was only a shot at a quick ending, it was still likely that the trial date would be upheld and that IB be allowed to present their so called evidence, of which they haven't yet produced. The trial was always the likely ending. The trial will also help to alleviate further issues when IB attempt to prolong this by then shifting it to the UK. If they're found stupid in the US court, their motions for trial and such will get tossed from the UK system before they make it to court, because they will have to provide evidence of a specific law being broken, of which will be either proved or disproved in the US trial.

January is the main focus.
Click to expand...

I know that - but from a customer point of view I would like to see a xenforo announcement to tell us if thre is any potential releases planned or not, to tell us what is planned for xenforo from now till January. If nothing, I am going to have to look somewhere else and it probably won't be beneficial to convert that particular forum back to xenforo. I, thinking from a business point of view not a legal one.
 
ManagerJosh said:
I am curious to why the judge decided not to throw the case out. It seems well... strange.
Click to expand...

Josh there are useful statements`on this thread about how the courts have a strong bias is to "allow them their day in court." Not merely a kind of fair play, but to block a vexatious litigant (hot air troublemaker) from using the appeal process to drag things out forever.
I have now compiled my own research review of this thread and others. I'll put it to work.

[EDIT: All quotes happen to be from this thread (the CCU) ]

Oct 19 jadmperry: ... preferred to let things go to trial so long as there is any plausible theory on which they might win. ... The law favors giving plaintiffs their day in court; ...

Nov 11 ’11. jadmperry: ... if enough evidence is not adduced at trial to support the claim, the judge will not let the jury decide. The law favors letting claims go forward to trial IF there is a plausible basis for the claim (and in deciding this they will assume what the plaintiff claims is true). This is a simplification, but is good enough for discussion purposes. So, in order to avoid appeals from cases that are borderline, many judges will let the case go to trial. But, if at trial there is no evidence supporting the claim, the judge will enter judgment in favor of the defendant.

June 6 ’12. jadmperry: The jury would decide whether there is enough evidence to make a finding. However, the judge also has a role and can find that as a matter of law, there has not been enough evidence to meet this standard (and would result in a JNOV- judgment notwithstanding verdict).

Oct 2 ’12. ENF: Document #128
Proposed Order for Dismissal
jadmperry: 2) The defendant's have moved for involuntary dismissal (which would result in a with prejudice dismissal and award of costs/attorneys fees). The ruling will be either a grant or a denial of this motion. But, the court's decision will be strengthened (for want of a better term) if it considers less harsh measures. I tend to think that if a dismissal without prejudice would come (which I don't think it would- I think you would get either a grant of involuntary dismissal, or strict orders for compliance with non-compliance followed with grant of motion for involuntary dismissal... the court would likely just explain how and why it considered- and then rejected a dismissal without prejudice), it would not be under Rule 41, but under the court's inherent power to manage its own cases and have compliance with its orders. This would give the judge more flexibility in fashioning the court's order.

My reading is that the recent back and forth re Mike and the TAC has thrown up enough dust that this needs to be cleared that it is nothing of substance. Plus the strong principle as above to allow a "day in court" to prevent later appeals: even if that day then decrees the complaints are unworthy of jury assessment, or even lengthy examination by the judge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom