Current Litigation

[CTXMedia]

I'm assuming its a simple case of the judge wants to hear more? to better understand the case? nothing at all wrong with that, and I assume also that this is his privilege.

Don't all pull your hair out just yet. Settle back down, take a deep breathe, and ask yourselves "If I don't understand something, am I in a good position to make a judgement on it?" - if the answer is no, then you'd do what the judge is doing - get more info and make and informed decision.

Sounds like bloody good common sense to me!!

 

[AnthonyCea]

As Michael, a lawyer himself said, this has nothing to do with technology, the hearing was on the motions to dismiss the California case based on jurisdiction issues, apparently the judge feels it is in the proper court and that he has jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

Courts may also have jurisdiction that is exclusive, or concurrent (shared). Where a court has exclusive jurisdiction over a territory or a subject matter, it is the only court that is authorized to address that matter. Where a court has concurrent or shared jurisdiction, more than one court can adjudicate the matter. Where a concurrent jurisdiction exists in a civil case, a party may attempt to engage in forum shopping, by bringing the case to a court or venue which it presumes would rule in its favor.

 

[CroNiX]

Can we get back on topic please?

[sarcasm]
Which topic is that? The "we're all wannabe part-time lawyers speculating on things we know little or nothing about" topic?
[/sarcasm]

 

[jadmperry]

First off, I wish Kier, Mike and Ashley the best in their fight. Keep your spirits up guys! In the end, I am confident you will prevail.

I will wait to see the order denying the motion to comment on the substance of todays proceedings.

I want to add one comment on some of the posts...the motion hearing today was just to rule on whether the CA Federal Court had the power to hear the case against the defendants and, if it did, whether it was the right forum to hear the case.

A lot of folks have posted that maybe the judge wanted to hear more about the case. I think this misunderstands what the motions today were about. It had nothing to do with the merits (i.e., what IB accuses XF and the individual defendants of having done wrong). I know some people understand this, but from some comments it seems like people may be mistaken in thinking the judge was looking at whether the case is "strong" or who has the correct position on whether the defendants did something that warrants a judgment. The issues today only had to do with the threshold questions of whether the court can even entertain this lawsuit. The judge could not have ruled on the merits today. It was all about jurisdiction and the related issues of whether this court is the right place to hear the case.

As for the strengths and weaknesses of the US legal system...well, I think that people can have their opinions. I am not aware of any one system that is defect free. There are pluses and minuses to every system. Some work better than others. But, other than expressing frustration, I am not sure what value there is in debating this.

 

[Salty]

It would be an absolute shame if these cases siphon money from the Xenforo development. I'd imagine that the costs aren't cheap.

Save us from the Overlords.

I don't see how it can do any harm. WE are not involved in the case.

That doesn't stop corporations from taking actions against a site owner for content their users post.

To think it would be any different in our (US) legal system, would be a stretch.

May not be "rule" but I wouldn't poke the bear given the option of "do and don't." It doesn't harvest funnies for the audience, only facepalm.

 

[grant sarver]

Here come de judge, here come de judge, order in the court room................................

 

[TheLaw]

I have many friends praying about this situation. Despite this temporary hurdle, despite my own anger, frustration, and disbelief, I still believe that GOD is in control, that He will grant XF favor with the powers-that-be, and it will go forward.

There is an old joke in the legal system, unfortunately applicable here:

Q: What is the difference between G-d and Federal District Court Judge?

A: G-d doesn't think he's a Federal District Court Judge.

 

[jadmperry]

There is an old joke in the legal system, unfortunately applicable here:

Q: What is the difference between G-d and Federal District Court Judge?

A: G-d doesn't think he's a Federal District Court Judge.

LOL....I saw that in the record of the subcommittee meeting on impeachment of Judge Real. Unfortunately, sometimes this joke is all too true.

 

[TheLaw]

As Michael, a lawyer himself said, this has nothing to do with technology, the hearing was on the motions to dismiss the California case based on jurisdiction issues, apparently the judge feels it is in the proper court and that he has jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

Actually, the hearing was for three things, I'll only discuss two:

(1) Does the US court have jurisdiction (the power to hear) over this case?

A: The court can decide that it be premature to rule that there is no jurisdiction because both XenForo and Kier may have sufficient "contact" with the State of California to warrant hearing the case, e.g. it is shown XenForo sold 10,238 licenses to people within the state. But this is the weaker motion - the second motion being denied is puzzling.

(2) Assuming both courts would have jurisdiction to hear this case, which one would be more convenient? (After all, it wouldn't be fair to try the same case in both courts and it would be a huge waste of everyone's time and money.)

A: Both. The judge is supposed to use his "discretion" and, quite honestly, I don't know what the judge's thinking is on this as the decision seems to be somewhat at odds with my understanding of the principles of judicial economy (an efficient use of the court system.) Could it be that he thinks this case or parts of it should be heard in the US? I don't know. Perhaps when the transcript or decision is on PACER we'll be able to decipher the reasoning.

 

[Carlos]

At first, I was frustrated by the outcome of today's verdict....but in the end, I felt like the judge wants to hear iB's case, so that he can decide for himself that whether iB has merits of the suit. I realized soon enough that the motion to continue the suit is only going to cause iB more trouble then it's worth. Based on the reactions of the vB4 users, and xF users, I have a feeling that this whole suit will just backfire on iB. Especially with the lying that's been going on from the time we saw the documents to now.

If the judge sees past the lying by iB then I will be disappointed. But it won't surprise me, given the justice system. xF can make an appeal in the UK. The furthest they can go is appeal in california but, that alone costs more money in itself.

 

[ManagerJosh]

I might be totally wrong, but I remember reading at one point that the US Supreme Court keeps an eye on the trials going on at all levels of the US Federal Courts, and could very well step in to hear a matter at any given point in time...

 

[jadmperry]

Actually, the hearing was for three things, I'll only discuss two:

(1) Does the US court have jurisdiction (the power to hear) over this case?

A: The court can decide that it be premature to rule that there is no jurisdiction because both XenForo and Kier may have sufficient "contact" with the State of California to warrant hearing the case, e.g. it is shown XenForo sold 10,238 licenses to people within the state. But this is the weaker motion - the second motion being denied is puzzling.

(2) Assuming both courts would have jurisdiction to hear this case, which one would be more convenient? (After all, it wouldn't be fair to try the same case in both courts and it would be a huge waste of everyone's time and money.)

A: Both. The judge is supposed to use his "discretion" and, quite honestly, I don't know what the judge's thinking is on this as the decision seems to be somewhat at odds with my understanding of the principles of judicial economy (an efficient use of the court system.) Could it be that he thinks this case or parts of it should be heard in the US? I don't know. Perhaps when the transcript or decision is on PACER we'll be able to decipher the reasoning.

Like you said, I think it will take seeing the order/decision to know what happened here. That said, implicit in any decision to deny the motions to dismiss would be that the judge found "minimum contacts" sufficient to support in personam jurisdiction. Not sure how this could be the case...my only thought (though I would disagree with this analysis based on that alleged conduct not meeting the nexus element, i.e, it was not the place of the receipt of the information that should count but rather the locus of the later use of this info in the UK) would be that he found the important operative fact alleged to be the conduct in CA when it is alleged that Kier "stole" the trade secrets. I still disagree with this, but I suppose there could be some tortured analysis finding pendent jurisdiction for other claims.

Once past the jurisdictional issue, I would "guess" that the US Copyright claims would be the basis for finding venue in CA court (i.e., overcoming the forum non conveniens argument). That is, this claim would not lie in UK courts, hence the appropriate venue in CA.

Interesting to me, it appears that there are several subject matter jurisdiction issues that were not raised. I think there are likely 12(b)(6) issues for non-compete and the contract claims appear to be entered into and performed in the UK, making CA courts wholly inappropriate for those issues (not to mention the fact that CA law seems to specifically bar these claims).

But, we will have to wait and see what the decision says. (I know I said before that I would wait to see the decision before commenting...I point out that the above is my best guess of how the court could have ruled the way it did...it may be completely off the mark of what was actually decided).

 

[jadmperry]

I might be totally wrong, but I remember reading at one point that the US Supreme Court keeps an eye on the trials going on at all levels of the US Federal Courts, and could very well step in to hear a matter at any given point in time...

No. That will not happen. There are some cases, I suppose, where the S. Ct has exclusive jurisdiction and/or could exercise some kind of general supervisory authority over the Federal Courts and "grab" a case. Trust me, this will not happen.

 

[jadmperry]

At first, I was frustrated by the outcome of today's verdict....but in the end, I felt like the judge wants to hear iB's case, so that he can decide for himself that whether iB has merits of the suit.

See my comments from my earlier post.

I want to add one comment on some of the posts...the motion hearing today was just to rule on whether the CA Federal Court had the power to hear the case against the defendants and, if it did, whether it was the right forum to hear the case.

A lot of folks have posted that maybe the judge wanted to hear more about the case. I think this misunderstands what the motions today were about. It had nothing to do with the merits (i.e., what IB accuses XF and the individual defendants of having done wrong). I know some people understand this, but from some comments it seems like people may be mistaken in thinking the judge was looking at whether the case is "strong" or who has the correct position on whether the defendants did something that warrants a judgment. The issues today only had to do with the threshold questions of whether the court can even entertain this lawsuit. The judge could not have ruled on the merits today. It was all about jurisdiction and the related issues of whether this court is the right place to hear the case.

 

[Carlos]

See my comments from my earlier post.

I read it right after I posted.

'Entertain' the lawsuit is sort-of a broad statement, it may be seen as 'looking at merits' or 'seeing if it's strong enough to stick.' Thing is, opening suits like the one described in today's event is just that, opening statements, opening motions. The denial of dismissal means that the judge thinks that the situation looks like its going to be (for a lack of a better word) nasty.

iB wants to "headbutt" with xenforo lawyers for an agenda of their own. I do not know, nor want to make assumptions.

 

[jadmperry]

Carlos,

I would disagree. The only thing today's ruling shows is that the judge thinks his court has the power to hear the case and that it is the right court to hear the case (that is what I meant by "entertain"...that the court believes it is the right court to hear the case). It has nothing to do with the merits.

That is the important point to remember. This has nothing to do with the merits. Nothing today had to do with the merits, just the issues having to do with whether XF (really all of the defendants) had sufficient contacts with CA to make the court have power over the the defendants.

A principle of US law is that a person has to have sufficient "minimum contacts" with a jurisdiction in order to be sued there. If they do not, there is no personal jurisdiction over the person (in personam jurisdiction). The Supreme Court has stated that if there are not sufficient minimum contacts, then it would violate the US Constitution to force the person to defend themselves in such a jurisdiction.

 

[Carlos]

Carlos,

I would disagree. The only thing today's ruling shows is that the judge thinks his court has the power to hear the case and that it is the right court to hear the case (that is what I meant by "entertain"...that the court believes it is the right court to hear the case). It has nothing to do with the merits.

Okay, 'kay!

That is the important point to remember. This has nothing to do with the merits. Nothing today had to do with the merits, just the issues having to do with whether XF (really all of the defendants) had sufficient contacts with CA to make the court have power over the the defendants.

I will try to remember!

A principle of US law is that a person has to have sufficient "minimum contacts" with a jurisdiction in order to be sued there. If they do not, there is no personal jurisdiction over the person (in personam jurisdiction). The Supreme Court has stated that if there are not sufficient minimum contacts, then it would violate the US Constitution to force the person to defend themselves in such a jurisdiction.

Then KMA needs to get their butts over here!

 

[T-889]

Money rules the world...

And yes, your legal-system sucks, but so does ours... the one with more money always wins. Hopefully they only won the battle in this case!

Oh, and yes, this is definetely not the worst case. There are people being in remand for the rest of their lifes because they are a threat to the empire.

That's all I have to say now.

 

[Allan]

I am sad to this ruling, but it is not finished, I supported Kier and Mike in their approach, common sense will win !

 

[DoctorWatsOn]

Money rules the world...

And yes, your legal-system sucks, but so does ours... the one with more money always wins. .

Luckily that is not true, well at least not in the UK, and I can say that having won a case some years ago against a business owned by the mighty Daily Mail & General Trust group.