California Case Update

[SneakyDave]

Sadik, we need you asking more questions, obviously.

 

[Gabby]

Mike is represented by Grace+Grace LLC, as am I and XenForo Ltd.

Hi Kier.
Remember, this too shall pass and life will go on post lawsuit. Besides, you have a yummy voice that should take you places. Hopefully to my place. Just kidding-kind off. LOL I'm hoping to see you and the other boys on the next addition of The Full Monty.

Laugh at it all...

 

[Sadik B]

Sadik, we need you asking more questions, obviously.

lol...

In all seriousness, nothing seems to have changed since the last time I read this thread. Continuing delay tactics by IB's lawyers and XF having to see them through. Hope Nov. 5th would change that. Though, it seems, unfortunately though that a full dismiss of the case on Nov 5th is unlikely and it may get to trial. Wishing XF the best.

 

[Jake Bunce]

IB continues to assert that no TAC is required of them. This is a key point of disagreement as it affects arguments for dismissal and default judgment:

This is in reference to the ruling from document 121:

You can see that the motion for leave to file a TAC was granted in part. IB asked for permission to file a TAC, and the court gave permission to file part of their proposed TAC.

IB now claims that no TAC is required of them, but this seems to be at odds with the legal argument they made in document 107 which claims an amended complaint is the proper procedure here, not just a request to dismiss:

As before, the fate of the TAC is in dispute. It will be interesting to see what the court says. But to me it seems clear that IB needs to actually file the TAC after being granted leave to do so.

 

[Jane-SU]

In reviewing everything, I have a lot of faith that the final outcome of this case will be positive. And I really doubt Internet Brand's has anything they can produce at this time to change that outcome. I mean it is not likely that we could be yet again given a strong disappointment of another lawsuit surrounding xenforo.

 

[Jake Bunce]

In this latest document IB is requesting the opportunity to amend:

This is despite the judge's statement from document 125 last June that amendment in this case is ended. Or maybe it's a more informal statement to that effect. But it seems clear that the judge wants to get to trial on the current claims and not entertain any more amendments:

I don't think the judge will take kindly to IB's attempt to amend the case yet again.

 

[ManagerJosh]

So what does it all mean since fred posted? I asked the question because I'm not fluent with all this law talk. I'm hearing one thing from some people, other things from other people and you don't know what is really happening because the thread is becoming more fragmented with wannabe lawyer talk, people all of a sudden wanting to be lawyers.

So I'm still none the wiser, the thread really doesn't serve a purpose if that purpose is to provide information.

Internet Brands dropped the ball and now are blowing a lot of hot air like they typically do. Nothing more.

Except this time they are trying to do it to a wise judge which is likely not a wise move.

 

[Jake Bunce]

IB acknowledges their failure to serve new defendants:

I find it odd that they are placing this burden on the court and perhaps on the defense counsel. I suspect the court might not appreciate this.

 

[Adam Howard]

In reviewing everything, I have a lot of faith that the final outcome of this case will be positive. And I really doubt Internet Brand's has anything they can produce at this time to change that outcome. I mean it is not likely that we could be yet again given a strong disappointment of another lawsuit surrounding xenforo.

That would be a misfortunate turn of events, but as you said... What would be the odds of that ever happening?

I believe at this time; XenForo will indeed do well in the future.

 

[kkm323]

I like to thank Kier and Jake for clarifying many of our concerns

 

[Pereira]

PACER Updates for 10/15/2012
131-6 - Exhibit A-O // 67 Pages.

I had to double-check that this was not an exhibit from XenForo lawyers. The back and forth correspondence of both lawyers is very revealing to me. Some basic misunderstandings and it gets personal at times. I wish I had more time to elaborate but it's worth a read.

 

[Jake Bunce]

From document 131-5, IB continues to dispute the fate of the TAC:

He is referencing the hearing on May 21, 2012 which is in document 125. He says the court told him they "did not want or expect an Amended Complaint" which he claims is in reference to the TAC, but that is not the case. He is confusing a conversation about future amendments with the ruling on the TAC. This is the conversation about future amendments that happened after the TAC was granted / denied in part:

And if there was any confusion, the official ruling on the TAC should resolve that:

Again, it seems like IB is pleading ignorance here.

 

[DaKat]

I, for one, look forward with great anticipation to Pam's response to the latest motion.

 

[Russ]

Would be interesting to see what sort of settlement IB threw out, however I doubt we'd ever see it

 

[Anthony Parsons]

People need to stop worrying about IB tactics. Legal tactics. And instead accept that nothing is going to change until the judge has ruled.

IB's entire tactic has been to draw this out. It really should be no surprise to anyone that IB are now trying to draw it out again, basically leaving things to the last minute. IB have had months to get their ducks in a row, and it is only their fault and ignorance to discard matters. As a result, they're now trying to claim those being served need adequate time to obtain a defence. Actually... none of them need time to defend themselves, because IB have no actual legal facts presented to date that anything has been done wrong by law.

IB are focused on pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. They have the entire time. They've tried it on the judge. The judge bought it for a while, then stopped. Now they're forced into court to show evidence, of which has not yet been produced. It hasn't been produced because it doesn't exist. It is purely "he said, she said" statements that they're using.

California law does not affect staff going into competition against VB, by earning a living using their skills. Experts have examined the code, of which has no liking to VB or anything developed prior. IB have tried claiming copyright of MySQL, PHP, Javascript, SEO and other things, of which they don't even own copyright for. They've tried making it personal, bringing in anyone and everyone to make it look grand and intimidating.

IB have still not produced a thread of evidence to support any of their claims to date. Zero.

People need to relax and hope that a judge doesn't get sucked into IB's furthered nonsense for delay tactics. That is the only worry. The faster this gets to court, the faster IB look stupid and XF are cleared and can get on with business.

 

[Jake Bunce]

Deleted some personal and meta posts that were detracting.

 

[CivilWarTalk]

Mike is represented by Grace+Grace LLC, as am I and XenForo Ltd.

Thanks for that clarification!

 

[erich37]

131-6 - Exhibit A-O // 67 Pages.

this .pdf is interesting read
....... and GRACE is great !

Ravioli is a joke

 

[ENF]

PACER Update for 10/16/2012

Docket Text: NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY Re: APPLICATION for Clerk to Enter Default against Defendant Michael Sullivan[130]. The Clerk cannot enter the requested relief as Request for Entry of Default has been forwarded to assigned Judge Other Clerk not authorized to process Defaults re Foreign Service. (pj)

Documents in this set:

132 - NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY DEFAULT/DEFAULT JUDGMENT // 1 Page

This is in response to document #130 as filed here.

Regards,
ENF

Added: Complete Docket History - As of 10/17/2012.

 

[Jake Bunce]

So in a nutshell, in terms of FACTS, and not assumptions.. what's the up-to-date status of all this? LOL!

XenForo has requested the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. IB has requested a default judgment and leave to drag out the case even further. The court will rule on this stuff on November 5. If the case is not dismissed then the trial is January 15, 2013.