California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
The original post said some motions were granted and some not. Usually a court order will have reference about such things. Or someone could summarize the issues in the motions again so you don't have to search over 150 pages. Thanks for nothing.
 
You need to get a perspective. Some of us have regular lives and cannot spend time reading loads of messages. But as owner of three XF licenses, I'm obviously curious as to what's going on. We are arguing about a poorly formed message that could have had a sentence or two of clarification.
 
more clear then -> I have not yet seen exactly what has been denied or granted.

It should be obvious that is all there is at the moment and that the guy that posted was just updating as best he could.

I too have a regular life, yet have taken the time to read at least 90% of the thread here trying to stay informed as to what is going on, and while I would have LOVED more information from Shamil, I could tell by the post he gave all that he had.

*shrug* A moot point really, and certainly not worth bickering over. Just stay tuned, more information will likely be had in a day or three.
 
It sounds like at least partial good news. Will have to see what the order states when it is signed to figure out which part(s) of XF's motion were granted and which part(s) were denied.
 
Onimua said:
I thought "denied" meant they were decided on and the answer is "no"?
Click to expand...
They are just pretrial motions. Mostly to do with dismissing parts. So those that are granted will never be heard and those that are denied will continue to trial. Nothing is "decided" except whether to hear arguments related to the motions or not.

Unless, of course they are plaintiff motions, in which case the granted ones will be heard and the denied ones won't.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Thanks for nothing.
Click to expand...

Feel free to find out the information for yourself if you don't like how Shamil is doing it.

His post made it more than clear that at the moment we do not know which have been granted or denied. If "your perspective" means that its difficult to follow, then get another perspective. Everyone else seems to understand the post fine.

Keep up the good work Shamil.
 
So are we just waiting on the files to be uploaded to pacer to find out more? Will they even post the transcript up on pacer? When they say on the record they mean what is said in the transcript from the judge that day right?

I can not wait for the day the judge dismisses this whole case. Nonsense, pure nonsense the whole thing is.
 
Difficult to follow simply means that the post provided very little information, without any explanation as to what might be required to get the rest. If this is coming from Pacer, I understand the dearth of information. But it's not my job to answer questions; it's up to the management of XenForo Ltd. to expand upon that cursory bit of information, or someone else with better access.
 
Mark.B said:
Shamil's post is perfectly clear, I understood it within five seconds of reading it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is, I think Shamil needs to stop talking in court-room jargon all the time and write things more aimed at the layman. Be a little more clear about things, more descriptive. Even I didn't understand a word he said before, I agree with Gene Steinberg on that one.
 
Can we get back to the subject please, instead of this back and forth arguing over a single post?

The simple fact of the matter is there is no other information at this time.
No doubt the thread will be updated as soon as more becomes available.
 
mrGTB said:
I don't think it is, I think Shamil needs to stop talking in court-room jargon all the time and write things more aimed at the layman. Be a little more clear about things, more descriptive. Even I didn't understand a word he said before, I agree with Gene Steinberg on that one.
Click to expand...

I prefer the second version - for someone with such little time, they don't want to read a paragraph as I've written but short, simple statements.

The court recently filed its order on a motion proposed by the defendants, including but not limited to XenForo Limited, Kier Darby etc. The court has concluded in this order that whilst it has granted parts of the motion put forward by the defendants and its counsel, it has also denied parts of the motion. The order itself does not adequately specify any reasons for such decision however, the reasons are stated on the record. The order notes that the plaintiff should submit a proposed order with respect to this order. Just a reminder about the reasons in the motion put forward by the plaintiff:

  1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for declaratory relief;
  2. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets
against Defendants;
3. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against Defendants;
  1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of contract against Darby;
  2. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of a duty of loyalty against
Darby;
6. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act against Defendants;
7. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations against Defendants;
8. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) against Defendants;
  1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for conversion against Defendants;
  2. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for conspiracy against Defendants;
  3. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act against Defendants; and
12. Plaintiff failed to join Jelsoft Enterprises Limited, Internet Brands,
Inc., Freddie Bingham, and Steve Machol as parties as required by Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

OR

The Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART defendants’ motion, as stated on the record, for reasons as stated on the record.
Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order.
 
I really hate internet brands for doing this. I cant imagine the features we'd have by now if it wasnt for this crap going on a year and a half now.
 
Kier said:
I don't have all the details. From the information I have, the Court dismissed the unfair competition, civil conspiracy and RICO counts.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for more ridiculousness from IB, it makes my day. Maybe they can sue XenForo for using the same smiley shortcodes they use? (Like Apple does with Samsung)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom