California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would anyone not think it's a Kier, Ashley and Mike team?

There has been absolutely zero indication that any one of those have left the team. Recently when the web server went down and the Demo system was nackered, Mike fixed it. Kier is here daily. Ashley's name has been mentioned with regards to certain support tickets.

Every single one of these people is still a director of XenForo Ltd and also still going to be an active member of the team.
 
Chris Deeming said:
Why would anyone not think it's a Kier, Ashley and Mike team?

There has been absolutely zero indication that any one of those have left the team. Recently when the web server went down and the Demo system was nackered, Mike fixed it. Kier is here daily. Ashley's name has been mentioned with regards to certain support tickets.

Every single one of these people is still a director of XenForo Ltd and also still going to be an active member of the team.
Click to expand...
No Chris. They may still do things behind the scene to help stuff tick along (as I do on things I walked away from over 10 years ago) but it does not imply they are an active member. Over the past year all of them, at a good guess, have got jobs outside of being self-employed. They may like that and decide they do not want to work for themselves. It does not mean the team is still together.
 
As far as we know, from data here and data on Companies House, all 3 members are still here.
There's been no newly filed documents to suggest a director has left the company, so we can only speculate.

... and this thread will probably be closed again as it's derailing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vVv
yessir said:
You seem to know a lot more about what is going on here than the rest of us do.
Click to expand...

No. I know nothing more.

People just believe rumours over the facts staring them in the face.

Once more:

Kier visits regularly and has publicly stated the fight is for nothing and development will continue.
Ashley still responds to support tickets.
Mike has within the last 6 weeks resolved a website outage and also recently resolved some major issues with the demo system.

Those are facts. It's not a case of knowing more or less.
 
Deebs said:
No Chris. They may still do things behind the scene to help stuff tick along (as I do on things I walked away from over 10 years ago) but it does not imply they are an active member. Over the past year all of them, at a good guess, have got jobs outside of being self-employed. They may like that and decide they do not want to work for themselves. It does not mean the team is still together.
Click to expand...
You're speculating.

I was stating facts.
 
PACER Updates for: 1/10/2013

Docket Text said:
MINUTES OF Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (12-10-12) Hearing held before Judge Manuel L. Real: The Court defers ruling on defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [158] at this time, and instead Orders the parties to attend a settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge. This matter is therefore referred to MAGISTRATE JUDGE KENTON for the holding of a settlement conference at the earliest possible date. The parties shall contact the clerk to Judge Kenton to set up a date and time for the settlement conference. Court Reporter: Sheri Kleeger. (jp)
Click to expand...

View/Download Documents:

#177 - Civil Minutes (1/7/2013)

[Essentially, what we already knew. Deferred to the Magistrate Judge for a 'settlement conference'.]
 

Attachments

Interesting. To be scheduled.

This matter is therefore referred to MAGISTRATE JUDGE KENTON for the holding of a settlement conference at the earliest possible date. The parties shall contact the clerk to Judge Kenton to set up a date and time for the settlement conference.
 
Interesting. The judge has deferred his ruling on summary judgment and instead has ordered the parties to settle.

From previous documents we know the judge stated that this case was ripe for settlement (reference):

Screen shot 2012-12-17 at 10.31.21 PM.webp

We also know that the two parties have apparently broken off settlement discussions (reference):

Screen shot 2012-12-24 at 12.09.06 PM.webp

And now the judge is ordering the parties to attend a settlement conference with a magistrate (from this most recent document):

Screen shot 2013-01-10 at 5.37.36 PM.webp

The judge obviously wants this case to be settled between the two parties. Maybe jadmperry can offer some insight. If the judge feels so strongly that this case should be settled then one would assume he is in a position to issue summary judgment. But he has deferred (not denied) summary judgment in favor of settlement talks. Why would he favor settlement over summary judgment? That's a question for jadmperry. But I would guess that settlement is a more conclusive end than is summary judgment. Settlement would include damages and would preclude an appeal and other possible procedural delays which, given the history of this case, might be cause for concern.

I am just speculating. I am not a lawyer. I am curious to hear from jadmperry about this.
 
So if IB doesn't want to settle, but XF perhaps wants to settle it, IB could still some how drag this out for more years, all because they don't want to settle it? Kind of like, one spouse wants a divorce, files and puts in paper work.. all the other spouse has to do, is sign it and they're divorced... but if the other spouse doesn't want divorced and doesn't sign papers... they're still technically married and not divorced.. until other spouse finally gets to sign it? ... Lol!

wife that wants divorced immediately = XF
IB = the hubs that's abusive, a-hole, woman beater, that doesn't want divorced, so wifey suffers more in "hell", so doesn't sign divorce papers ever.
 
Lets face it, a settlement is paramount to a loss for xf at this point.

IB isn't going to settle with them paying anything to XF, and XF won't want to settle short of damages.

The question I suppose should be who is the judge looking out for here. If its IB then that's bad news for XF, but if the judge knows XF would win, why require the settlement talks...

Hmmm this is more interesting now finally than previous updates.

And now we've went from having a ruling in January to getting one who knows when again, ugh this sucks just settle it already.
 
signal500 said:
but if the judge knows XF would win, why require the settlement talks...
Click to expand...

My take on it:

Jake Bunce said:
The judge obviously wants this case to be settled between the two parties. Maybe jadmperry can offer some insight. If the judge feels so strongly that this case should be settled then one would assume he is in a position to issue summary judgment. But he has deferred (not denied) summary judgment in favor of settlement talks. Why would he favor settlement over summary judgment? That's a question for jadmperry. But I would guess that settlement is a more conclusive end than is summary judgment. Settlement would include damages and would preclude an appeal and other possible procedural delays which, given the history of this case, might be cause for concern.

I am just speculating. I am not a lawyer. I am curious to hear from jadmperry about this.
Click to expand...
 
so another 2 yrs it is...

tumblr_lps4e9BtAW1qg6japo1_400.jpg


lmfao, i'd love to add my own sighing.. drug out.. "okaaaay..." voice to this (with lips moving) and have it repeating.. be funny as hell lmfao.
 
signal500 said:
Lets face it, a settlement is paramount to a loss for xf at this point.

IB isn't going to settle with them paying anything to XF, and XF won't want to settle short of damages.

The question I suppose should be who is the judge looking out for here. If its IB then that's bad news for XF, but if the judge knows XF would win, why require the settlement talks...

Hmmm this is more interesting now finally than previous updates.

And now we've went from having a ruling in January to getting one who knows when again, ugh this sucks just settle it already.
Click to expand...

It could be a win. Think about it - If the judge thinks XF will win, why let IB take the case to court and burn through more money and waste more time.
 
Unfortunately, it would appear that the judge does not see a clear cut judgement as it is.
"Settlement" meaning the parties need to compromise.
I would suggest that the magistrate will report intransigence to the judge and give the judge further grounds for judgement.

And I am talking wa-a-y outside any area of expertise I may claim in any pursuit.
 
turtile said:
It could be a win. Think about it - If the judge thinks XF will win, why let IB take the case to court and burn through more money and waste more time.
Click to expand...

Lets hope so, but at this point more money spent on this trial is a drop on the bucket compared to what's already been spent. Either way I don't see the aides coming to any sort of agreement on this case.
 
I think the judge is weak... seriously. A settlement will hurt xF no matter what, because it says they did something wrong. I don't care what it means "in the eyes of the law", people are going to think they did something wrong and having to pay out ANYTHING in any way says just that.

Pretty lame really.
 
Trekkan said:
I think the judge is weak... seriously. A settlement will hurt xF no matter what, because it says they did something wrong. I don't care what it means "in the eyes of the law", people are going to think they did something wrong and having to pay out ANYTHING in any way says just that.

Pretty lame really.
Click to expand...


Completely agree, it is disgusting!

However, anything that gets this to the finish line with no further BS has to be considered seriously.

What a frikken CROCK though! Makes my blood boil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom