Digital Doctor
Well-known member
The smarmy lawyers attempt at further meaningless delays was thankfully denied.
California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
Adam Howard
Well-known member
Actually, it's better.... Starts 2 lines up......
Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
is denied. Counsel to prepare the orders.
Start litigating.
Don't --
MR. GRACE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Motion practice should be over with in this case.
All right.
MR. FRAIOLI: Your Honor, if I may ask, those motions are denied but with leave to amend --
THE COURT: No.
MR. FRAIOLI: -- with liberality?
THE COURT: No. We've ended the amendment. Let's get to trial on the case.
MR. GRACE: Thank you, Your Honor.
This tells me the judge saw the other attorney standing or rising to make another motion, but stop them. Which tells me the judge is getting tired of someone's bullsh*t.
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
If a person can't see, and accept, by now what IB are up-to, have been up-to the entire time, then really some people are just trolls. Look at the below quotes from the document:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant collaborated and conspired to misappropriate, but has made no factual allegation specific to Defendant Busby that he personally infringed Plaintiff's copyrights or trade secrets.
Here, the plaintiff has previously brought a claim for violation of Cal. Penal Code section 502, which was dismissed. Plaintiff now alleges some different facts revealed -- supposedly revealed by discovery; namely, that Defendant accessed Plaintiff's computers after their employment concluded, whereas the first amended complaint only considered accessing during employment. However, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate after employment... ...Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is denied.
IB have done nothing but this perpetual "factual" nonsense the entire time, yet still haven't provided an actual "fact" that can prove any of their supposed claims.
I'm really glad the judge is seeing through them and getting tough on this nonsense. Go judge!
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant collaborated and conspired to misappropriate, but has made no factual allegation specific to Defendant Busby that he personally infringed Plaintiff's copyrights or trade secrets.
Here, the plaintiff has previously brought a claim for violation of Cal. Penal Code section 502, which was dismissed. Plaintiff now alleges some different facts revealed -- supposedly revealed by discovery; namely, that Defendant accessed Plaintiff's computers after their employment concluded, whereas the first amended complaint only considered accessing during employment. However, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate after employment... ...Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is denied.
IB have done nothing but this perpetual "factual" nonsense the entire time, yet still haven't provided an actual "fact" that can prove any of their supposed claims.
I'm really glad the judge is seeing through them and getting tough on this nonsense. Go judge!
ENF
Well-known member
Per the text from the docket:
PACER/Court Reporter said:
It was available if you were able to access a physical court terminal or pay the court reporter (Bridget) for a copy of the transcript. I do not know the ins and outs of this particular process of court transcripts. The electronic copy that I provided here, became available on 9/9/12, as noted above.
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
Just an interesting note...
Mr. Grace: Good morning, Your Honor. Michael Grace, Grace & Grace, LLP, for Defendants Kier Darby and Xenforo Ltd., and Defendant Ashley Busby, specially appearing.
Mike is not mentioned?
Mr. Grace: Good morning, Your Honor. Michael Grace, Grace & Grace, LLP, for Defendants Kier Darby and Xenforo Ltd., and Defendant Ashley Busby, specially appearing.
Mike is not mentioned?
jadmperry
Well-known member
Not likely of any significance. I can think of many reasons why that statement could have been made as it was, including- if it was an omission- just because he forgot to say Mike's name. With multiple clients/defendants, it is not out of the realm of possibility that it was just an omission. The only technically important issue was for him to say "specially appearing" regarding Ashley, because in some cases, a "normal" appearance can create jurisdiction- which they were fighting (and won). In any event, it is pretty much irrelevant as the judge knows who was appearing, and it did not matter for hearing. If you really want to dig into it, look for any notice of appearance or signature block on various filings to see if there has been any change in representation. That seems unlikely, though, because once representing the parties, it takes a motion to withdraw- which has not been filed- to get out of the case as to representing your client.
No big whoop.
No big whoop.
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
Thank you for your amazing analysis jadmperry
It helps clears things up significantly
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
Nothing VB5 related will help IB make their claims, as VB4 was only in planning towards VB5 when Kier and co left IB, with 3.x still being the current platform at that time. IB would be hard pressed to now explain away VB5, if similar to XF, as being their code versus XF code in which they replicated, being after the fact. A scribble on a board with a concept does not make a final coded platform copyright ownership.
cornishman
Active member
Blow the court case, any new information about Kier? .....Erm, Kier, it's a name I seem to remember from the distant past!
John L.
Well-known member
I would image there won't be many updates until the actual trail in January. That is just my guess though.
Morgain
Well-known member
Agree totally and in the very unlikely situation that KAM can no longer run XF as it is I can help with another version as well as the Doc.
- Status