California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
WoodiE
Well-known member
How many legal cases have you defended that are similar to what XF is going through now?
Is every post you make intentionally worded to be as ignorant and provocative as possible? You know the answer to that question, however had you read through the whole thread and case you would know his post is entirely correct.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Thats pretty unfair. His point is quite valid.
We aren't privy to all of the facts (nor should we be). We have no idea how the judge is going to apply different laws and which he will weight more heavily than others. We do know this is a Cali based company suing a foreign company in a bad economy. I think there will be some bias there against XF, even though I think that would be wrong.
Hell, this is California, the same legal system that acquitted OJ in a criminal court and found him guilt in a civil court. And its before a judge with a well-known reputation - and thats all I'll say on that. To say there is nothing to worry about is misleading. If that were the case, it would already be dismissed after nearly a year and a half.
It should be as easy as looking at the code and seeing that they're nothing alike. Any competent technical person can do that. Judges, lawyers and juries are not competent technical people.
I stand by my statement, this guy always seems to post in ways designed to be as provocative and confrontational as possible.
As for the questions you pose. Theres a reason why VBSI is dragging its heels in the UK case (both me and shamil have failed to find any update in months) ...
Morgain
Well-known member
No it wouldn't. Lawyers want to make money so it goes on as long as possible.
Ditto the judge.
On top of that the judge is actually being careful so that no technicality is left open for appeal.
It's more true to say that IF the former employers were able to come up with any convincing evidence it would have gone to court by now and been resolved. They don't have that evidence so the best they can do is keep dragging it out by not answering things using every deadline they can, to cause inconvenience and smears for XF.
And yes I have defended legal cases, one of them right up to the High Court - and I won.
jadmperry
Well-known member
Lawyers (like most people) do want to make more money. So, there is financial incentive to make things go longer (so long as they are billing by the hour- which is the industry standard). But judges don't get paid more if a case goes on longer. Their concern is normally in not having more work and in not getting reversed on appeal (which would also create more work for them). Not that this contradicts what Morgain wrote (she alluded to it), but I thought I'd throw that point in for clarification.
I have seen no convincing evidence that any of IB's claims have merit. The process may take longer than it should, but all signs point towards XF winning.
I have seen no convincing evidence that any of IB's claims have merit. The process may take longer than it should, but all signs point towards XF winning.
AWS
Well-known member
Unless something has changed plaintiff attorneys don't make a dime if there isn't a settlement. They normally will not take a case unless they have a pretty good idea they'll get something back in return. Standard used to be 33% off the top plus normal fees. Defendants attorney is paid normal fees.
That's what is messed up with the U.S. system. The defendant loses either way unless, which is rare, they are awarded to recoup the attorney fees.
That's what is messed up with the U.S. system. The defendant loses either way unless, which is rare, they are awarded to recoup the attorney fees.
jadmperry
Well-known member
That is the business model for cases like personal injury. However, there is no way that IB's lawyers are working on contingency basis. Though extremely rare, some companies have forced law firms (especially if they are regular clients) to accept other arrangements (usually in the form of hourly fees with a cap on total fees per matter). However, it is inconceivable that IB's lawyers are not billing them on an hourly basis in a matter like this.
digitalpoint
Well-known member
I will bet you $50,000 that in this case, the plaintiff's attorney's are being paid now (rather than a backend percent of a judgement). I'll even give you 5:1 odds.
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
Are the IB lawyers essentially permanent IB employees ?
mrGTB
Well-known member
I wouldn't be surprised if they was in some way, especially looking at what IB are worth as a company overall. You'd expect them to have permanent legal representation team in place on their books.
digitalpoint
Well-known member
Maybe not permanent employees, but certainly Internet Brands is a bigger client of theirs than this one case.
Lynn Walsh is IB's Vice President of Corporate Development and General Counsel. Where did they work before IB? They were a partner in the law firm handling the IB vs. XF case (Alston & Bird).
http://www.internetbrands.com/the-company/management.html
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/lynn-walsh/14/705/293
I'll assume this is not the only case Alson & Bird handle for IB considering their general counsel came from the firm.
Now... let's imagine for a minute how various scenarios would play out after IB comes to them with the XF case...
- Alston thinks it's a slam dunk... they gladly take the case.
- Alson thinks it's baseless... Now play that scenario out... What would the upside for them to relay their opinion to IB? They lose short term dollars in handling the case. Now what happens long term? They potentially lose a big, long-term client as a whole because they refused to take the case. Even if they did think it was baseless (I'm not saying they do, just playing out various scenarios), but they wanted to protect their long-term relationship with IB... Do you think they would have a better chance of retaining that relationship if they took the case and lost (but at least being on IB's side in doing so) or would they have a better chance of retaining a long-term relationship with IB if they refused to take the case based on their opinion of it...
Kim
Well-known member
They did originally have a different Legal Team on the case, and fired them quite a ways into the case.
One can conjecture that it was due to differing legal opinion, and IB not liking what they were hearing.
But it might have been personality conflicts, or any number of reasons, but an expensive exercise none the less.
One can conjecture that it was due to differing legal opinion, and IB not liking what they were hearing.
But it might have been personality conflicts, or any number of reasons, but an expensive exercise none the less.
digitalpoint
Well-known member
jadmperry
Well-known member
Given that at the time of the switching of counsel they were going through the earlier motions and the depositions, it is highly suggestive of the lawyers disagreeing on fundamental case issues with their client. It is all speculation, it could be that they were charging more than IB wanted to pay, it could be many things. But, if you made me say what my gut says, I would bet that there was some disagreement about the case.
Forsaken
Well-known member
Like lying under oath.
- Status