Current Litigation

[trilogy33]

look at the judge.

I did and I just had to do a CTRL +++++ on my browser...

 

[AnthonyCea]

Remember, litigation cases can go on for years, maybe the judge simply wants to see more evidence from both sides at this time, the average person knowledge wise is worlds away when it comes to understanding the legal system, we don't even speak the same language lawyers do, so hang in there and let the attorneys and the court system work, it takes a lot of time due to checks and balances in the legal system.

Heading out to get that pack of smokes, I need them for sure now !!

 

[MGSteve]

Do you have court papers? I have not been informed that it will start next year.

I'm sure I read a post from Kier saying it was scheduled for early next year

 

[Shamil]

My feeling prepared me for this. Unfortunately, Hnr Judge Real may just want to have more information, and may dismiss the case at a later date. All is not lost.

 

[Shamil]

I'm sure I read a post from Kier saying it was scheduled for early next year

As far as I am aware, IB requested an early 2012 jury trial. I don't know if it has been granted or not. I'll be calling The Strand tomorrow.

 

[John]

Not that it really makes any difference in the grand scheme of things but, disappointed as I am about this "ruling" it will not stop me from going forward with my business plans with XF. I fully expect the release of XF Gold to be a huge hit and the product and company to continue to gain in strength. I don't want to miss the boat and fully intend to be on it as it goes sailing past IB with me flying them the middle finger

 

[MGSteve]

As far as I am aware, IB requested an early 2012 jury trial. I don't know if it has been granted or not. I'll be calling The Strand tomorrow.

Found it..

We should know whether the Californian case will continue on or shortly after February 7th. As for the London case, there is a proposed trial date in early 2012, but who knows if the case will go that far. Most civil cases don't ever make it to trial.

 

[Floris]

All three motions to dismiss were denied by the judge. I have no further information at this time.

Well that sucks the cawk.

 

[MGSteve]

My feeling prepared me for this. Unfortunately, Hnr Judge Real may just want to have more information, and may dismiss the case at a later date. All is not lost.

Given the judge in question (and with no disrespect to him), I suspect he needs more time / information or both.

 

[Shamil]

Found it..

Hmm, thanks. I'm trying to push for the electronic copies of files.

 

[MGSteve]

Not that it really makes any difference in the grand scheme of things but, disappointed as I am about this "ruling" it will not stop me from going forward with my business plans with XF. I fully expect the release of XF Gold to be a huge hit and the product and company to continue to gain in strength. I don't want to miss the boat and fully intend to be on it as it goes sailing past IB with me flying them the middle finger

Same here, I've got a massive project in the pipeline for 2011, which will use XF at its core. I still plan to continue with that project.

 

[TheLaw]

Honestly, folks, don't get too spun up about this. Its hard to imagine a judge of his age having a firm grasp on the finer points of the technology involved. I'm sure all of us have at least one niche interest were we have very deep understanding of the subject. When we discuss it with others of a similar background, we can cause the eyes of observers to glaze over as though we are speaking Greek.

This has nothing to do with technology. I'd be very interested to hear what Judge Real was thinking with regard to law and general common sense. The only thing J. Real was supposed to decide was whether virtually the same issue should be litigated in two different courtrooms. It has nothing to do with the merits. Further research of J. Real seems to reveal that he's been the subject of the very, very, very rare impeachment proceedings. Makes one wonder...

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju29969.000/hju29969_0f.htm

IMPEACHING MANUEL L. REAL, A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

 

[SchmitzIT]

I'm willing to give the judge the benefit of the doubt, believing that he didn't have enough understanding to reach a conclusion.

Not sure, but wouldn't it have been better for the judge to pass the case onto another judge who might have more experience in the matter? If I get approached by someone and feel I am not the best person he ought to be talking to, I'll refer them to someone different. Then again, judging by the linked site about the judge, it does not seem as if he would be the type to do so. I can guess at his reasoning, but for the sake of the case will not do so.

 

[MGSteve]

Personally, I'm reserving my judgement (if you pardon the pun) for when I hear details of why the dismissal applications were refused.

 

[Onimua]

Well, I just woke up and that sucks.

 

[AnthonyCea]

I agree Michael, maybe he thinks all technology lawsuits should remain in the California court system for the good of the failing economy, who knows.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

Knowing Internet Brands, they will take the case somewhere else. Australia perhaps?

Hopefully they do... because Australian judges don't let total BS typically within the court... lucky if it gets past the conciliation process with a registrar.

 

[ManagerJosh]

All three motions to dismiss were denied by the judge. I have no further information at this time.

I hope it's only because he wants to rip into Internet Brands for lying...

 

[TheLaw]

Guys... I am waiting to hear the rationale for this decision. There is NO decision on the merits here. It should only be based upon a rule of law (and common sense) that you learn in the first semester of law school about what the proper forum is for a case to be heard.

The puzzling aspect of this is quite simple -- when people have a dispute, a plaintiff should pick his court and, if the defendant agrees or is required by law to defend in that court, the case is heard and a judge makes a decision who is right and who will pay. An issue like this that typically comes in front of a judge is usually which of two courts should hear a case. Typically the plaintiff picks Court A but a defendant argues that law and practicality and fairness means Court B should hear the case. But that isn't even what happened. Here the plaintiff sued in Court A and also in Court B... so the answer should be that BOTH courts should hear the case?

 

[Shamil]

Guys... I am waiting to hear the rationale for this decision. There is NO decision on the merits here. It should only be based upon a rule of law (and common sense) that you learn in the first semester of law school about what the proper forum is for a case to be heard.

The puzzling aspect of this is quite simple -- when people have a dispute, a plaintiff should pick his court and, if the defendant agrees or is required by law to defend in that court, the case is heard and a judge makes a decision who is right and who will pay. An issue like this that typically comes in front of a judge is usually which of two courts should hear a case. Typically the plaintiff picks Court A but a defendant argues that law and practicality and fairness means Court B should hear the case. But that isn't even what happened. Here the plaintiff sued in Court A and also in Court B... so the answer should be that BOTH courts should hear the case?

Same. I need someone to write up to PACER ASAP. I am superbly puzzled by the decision, but will not pass judgement until I've seen the documents.