California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
cclaerhout said:
It would like to say "it's -only- 2 weeks more... after a procedure of 2 years"
Click to expand...

that's what i was thinking before.. ."yay, only few more weeks or a month" .. but the constant moving / pushing forward to more weeks or months is starting to take wind from sails again... "booo.. can see out come in another year possibly.."
 
I'm very much not a lawyer, but it looks like the trial has been delayed as a result of IB's response to the judgement regarding Mike's default (or lack thereof). To an untrained eye, it looks like IB's lawyers pretty much had the judge over a barrel.

The document outlines why it would be unfair and unjust for the judge to rule that Mike was wrong, but then make IB "suffer" as a result by not entering a default *and* not giving them time to depose him before trial, and so on. It may not seem fair, but if the judge had ignored their request, I'm sure there would have been at least reasonable grounds for them to appeal.
 
cclaerhout said:
Is a pre-trial something like this?
Click to expand...
More or less

A pretrial hearing is a meeting with the judge that happens before trial, if the parties have not come to an agreement by that point.

Usually, the judge tries to get a sense of how the trial will come out and nudge the parties to compromise along those lines.

Trials consume the judge's time and the state's resources, and usually they end up where the judges expected, so judges try to avoid them, by strongly encouraging the involved parties and their lawyers to come to an agreement before an actual trial.

In most cases, the judge succeeds, and the parties and their lawyers do reach final agreement after that.

This is also the time when both parties announce what evidence they will present during a trial and what witnesses they maybe calling up. Given both parties time to prepare their defense. It could also be used to bring up more discovery or issue subpoenas, something I suspect Internet Brands / vBulletin will attempt to further the delay.
 
*Looks stunned* Woooooooowwwwwww. Internet Brands keeps getting worse, worse, and worse.

iB must be smiling, laughing, and cheering with each other, drinking beers. Woooow.

They continue to amaze me with these delays... constant delays. And, the judge is just going along with it.
 
they all need tossed in looney bins... anyone and everyone knows XF hasn't done anything wrong, yet this still continues to drag out and drag on for years and years.. it's bullshyt.
 
Carlos said:
*Looks stunned* Woooooooowwwwwww. Internet Brands keeps getting worse, worse, and worse.

iB must be smiling, laughing, and cheering with each other, drinking beers. Woooow.

They continue to amaze me with these delays... constant delays. And, the judge is just going along with it.
Click to expand...
vVv said:
they all need tossed in looney bins... anyone and everyone knows XF hasn't done anything wrong, yet this still continues to drag out and drag on for years and years.. it's bullshyt.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, welcome to America's legal system. The right to a fair and speedy trial has become subjective. It's not really the judges fault, but rather how our modern day system is design.
 
Shelley said:
*sighs* Not surprised in the least it's being dragged out.
Click to expand...

yeah, i don't see the pattern changing at all, until the doors are closed for good and IB gets/got what they wanted all along.. In year 2020, this thread will still be on-going...
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Now, the Court still has to say "yay" or "nay", but in this case "yay"
means striking the answer and "nay" is the one which allows the answer to stand.
"Yay" is the proper result here, but if the Court decides to say "nay", it must
condition the "nay" on terms and conditions that avoid prejudice to Plaintiff, the
innocent party here. Otherwise, "nay" becomes "neigh"—as in, the sound a horse
makes as it's kicking you in the gut (or other body part). That would definitely not
be the fair or appropriate result here.
Click to expand...
Heh... vBulletin's legal team are trying to be humourous!
 
But although the Court had concluded--in denying Darby's and Xenforo's motion to dismiss for lack of
prosecution--on November 5 that Plaintiff was correct, i.e., that the Second Amended Complaint was and had been operative, it nonetheless denied all requested relief on the ground that the Court itself had created the confusion but the
responsibility fell on Plaintiff to come to the Court earlier if it wanted to compel the Rule 26(f) meeting and obtain further discovery since that was what it was seeking.
Click to expand...

In other words, Pam's strategy of pointing out that IB dragged its feet worked to convince the judge that IB really is in no hurry to get this case to trial.

The rest of the document is IB's defence trying to argue that Mike deliberately slacked replying, and because of that either his reply should not be allowed (defaulted), or the trial needs to be moved forward to allow IB ample time to reply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom