Status of lawsuit

[Jake Bunce]

People have requested a more central location for "plain English" updates about the lawsuit, so here it is. The original thread will remain for posting legal documents and discussion:

http://xenforo.com/community/threads/california-case-update.10037/

 

[Jake Bunce]

XenForo has requested the case be dismissed because IB is dragging its feet. IB has requested a default judgment against Mike for procedural reasons that are in dispute. The court will rule on this stuff on November 5. If the case is not dismissed then the trial is January 15, 2013.

 

[Jake Bunce]

IB has requested a default judgment against Kier and XenForo because XenForo has obstructed the legal process. IB also wants to involve Matt Mecham in this case (the creator of IPB) who IB claims may have new information relevant to the case. The court will rule on this request on November 19.

 

[Jake Bunce]

XenForo has requested the case be dismissed because IB is dragging its feet. IB has requested a default judgment against Mike for procedural reasons that are in dispute. The court will rule on this stuff on November 5. If the case is not dismissed then the trial is January 15, 2013.

In this latest update, XenForo just filed a reply in support of their request for dismissal, reiterating their original arguments and defending against the accusations and claims made by IB in their opposition. The details exceed the boundaries of "plain English." But basically the two sides are having a little "back and forth" about XenForo's request for dismissal. The court is still scheduled to rule on dismissal on November 5.

 

[Jake Bunce]

IB has requested a default judgment against Kier and XenForo because XenForo has obstructed the legal process. IB also wants to involve Matt Mecham in this case (the creator of IPB) who IB claims may have new information relevant to the case. The court will rule on this request on November 19.

XenForo just filed an opposition to this request by IB. Basically XenForo refutes everything about the motion saying that it lacks substance and legal basis. Pamela (XenForo's lawyer) also points out numerous false claims made by IB in its motion, and she speaks to a larger pattern of delay by IB. The recent involvement of Matt Mecham is referred to by Pamela as "double hearsay." The court date for this motion is still November 19, which of course might be precluded by the November 5 ruling on dismissal.

 

[Jake Bunce]

It is November 5. People are eager and a few have asked for the specific time of today's hearing. The motion to dismiss will be heard at 10am California time (GMT -8). The ruling should be available sometime after that.

 

[Jake Bunce]

The case was not dismissed. The January trial date stands but (as I understand it) it is in question because of a backlog in the case. I would expect some kind of affirmation of the trial date soon. We'll see.

 

[Jake Bunce]

XenForo has requested the case be dismissed because IB is dragging its feet. IB has requested a default judgment against Mike for procedural reasons that are in dispute. The court will rule on this stuff on November 5. If the case is not dismissed then the trial is January 15, 2013.

IB has requested a default judgment against Kier and XenForo because XenForo has obstructed the legal process. IB also wants to involve Matt Mecham in this case (the creator of IPB) who IB claims may have new information relevant to the case. The court will rule on this request on November 19.

IB's requests for defaults against Mike, Kier, and XenForo are based on the fate of a legal document called the TAC (third amended complaint). XenForo claims the TAC was granted while IB claims it was denied. The fate of the TAC sets into motion other deadlines and events on which these recent motions are based. In short, if the TAC was granted then XF is favored. If the TAC was denied then IB is favored.

We have just received clarification from the judge in the latest document. He says the TAC was denied which is a win for IB. It remains to be seen what consequences will follow. It seems the fate of the TAC is a big misunderstanding.

The next court date is November 19. Stay tuned.

 

[Jake Bunce]

The next court date is November 19. Stay tuned.

This court date has been moved to Nov 26.

 

[Jake Bunce]

XenForo has requested the case be dismissed because IB is dragging its feet. IB has requested a default judgment against Mike for procedural reasons that are in dispute. The court will rule on this stuff on November 5. If the case is not dismissed then the trial is January 15, 2013.

Mike just submitted his response to the SAC. His previous failure to do so was the basis for IB's request for a default judgment against Mike. It appears that Mike's failure to submit a response to the SAC was because of confusion about the fate of the TAC which has now been resolved. One would expect the default judgment against Mike to be denied now that all of this is resolved. We will find out on Nov 26.

 

[Jake Bunce]

Both sides have submitted their witness lists and their legal claims in preparation for the trial.

There are still pending motions by IB against Mike, Kier, and XF which will be heard on Nov 26. So as before we are waiting for the Nov 26 court date. At stake is a possible delay in the case due to IB's request for additional discovery. The judge has previously stated that he does not want to entertain any more amendments, but we will see.

 

[Jake Bunce]

Mike just submitted his response to the SAC. His previous failure to do so was the basis for IB's request for a default judgment against Mike. It appears that Mike's failure to submit a response to the SAC was because of confusion about the fate of the TAC which has now been resolved. One would expect the default judgment against Mike to be denied now that all of this is resolved. We will find out on Nov 26.

IB has just requested that Mike's response to the SAC be stricken and a default judgment entered against him.

So basically Mike didn't respond to the SAC due to apparent confusion over the fate of the TAC. IB requested a default against Mike for not responding. And now that Mike has responded, IB wants that response stricken and a default entered anyways because IB does not have time to conduct discovery on Mike. The court date for this motion is Dec 17.

This is still pretrial. The trial date is still set for January 15, 2013.

 

[Jake Bunce]

This court date has been moved to Nov 26.

The hearing is at 10am California time (GMT -8). The ruling should be available sometime after that. The court will rule on this:

IB has requested a default judgment against Kier and XenForo because XenForo has obstructed the legal process. IB also wants to involve Matt Mecham in this case (the creator of IPB) who IB claims may have new information relevant to the case. The court will rule on this request on November 19.

XenForo just filed an opposition to this request by IB. Basically XenForo refutes everything about the motion saying that it lacks substance and legal basis. Pamela (XenForo's lawyer) also points out numerous false claims made by IB in its motion, and she speaks to a larger pattern of delay by IB. The recent involvement of Matt Mecham is referred to by Pamela as "double hearsay." The court date for this motion is still November 19, which of course might be precluded by the November 5 ruling on dismissal.

 

[Jake Bunce]

The above motion by IB was denied = good for XenForo.

 

[Jake Bunce]

IB has just requested that Mike's response to the SAC be stricken and a default judgment entered against him.

So basically Mike didn't respond to the SAC due to apparent confusion over the fate of the TAC. IB requested a default against Mike for not responding. And now that Mike has responded, IB wants that response stricken and a default entered anyways because IB does not have time to conduct discovery on Mike. The court date for this motion is Dec 17.

This is still pretrial. The trial date is still set for January 15, 2013.

XenForo just filed an opposition to this request. Basically XenForo refutes everything about the request, saying that IB is misstating and misrepresenting the history of the case in order to show "bad faith" by Mike in order to justify a default judgment against him. The court date for this motion is still Dec 17.

 

[Jake Bunce]

The case was not dismissed. The January trial date stands but (as I understand it) it is in question because of a backlog in the case. I would expect some kind of affirmation of the trial date soon. We'll see.

With both sides claiming a time crunch I have been looking for some affirmation of the trial date. A pretrial notice was just submitted by IB which doesn't contain any information, but it does list the trial date as January 15, 2012. Obviously the year is a typo (should be 2013). But this appears to be confirmation that the trial date has not been moved.

 

[Jake Bunce]

IB has just requested that Mike's response to the SAC be stricken and a default judgment entered against him.

So basically Mike didn't respond to the SAC due to apparent confusion over the fate of the TAC. IB requested a default against Mike for not responding. And now that Mike has responded, IB wants that response stricken and a default entered anyways because IB does not have time to conduct discovery on Mike. The court date for this motion is Dec 17.

This is still pretrial. The trial date is still set for January 15, 2013.

XenForo just filed an opposition to this request. Basically XenForo refutes everything about the request, saying that IB is misstating and misrepresenting the history of the case in order to show "bad faith" by Mike in order to justify a default judgment against him. The court date for this motion is still Dec 17.

And IB just filed a reply in support of their motion. Again the central issue seems to be the misunderstanding about the fate of the TAC. IB would have this be a willful misunderstanding.

The court date for this motion is still Dec 17.

 

[Jake Bunce]

The case was not dismissed. The January trial date stands but (as I understand it) it is in question because of a backlog in the case. I would expect some kind of affirmation of the trial date soon. We'll see.

With both sides claiming a time crunch I have been looking for some affirmation of the trial date. A pretrial notice was just submitted by IB which doesn't contain any information, but it does list the trial date as January 15, 2012. Obviously the year is a typo (should be 2013). But this appears to be confirmation that the trial date has not been moved.

Scratch that. The Jan 15, 2013 trial date has just been vacated. The final pretrial conference is now Feb 4, 2013. A new trial date will be set at the pretrial conference on Feb 4, 2013.

 

[Jake Bunce]

IB has just requested that Mike's response to the SAC be stricken and a default judgment entered against him.

So basically Mike didn't respond to the SAC due to apparent confusion over the fate of the TAC. IB requested a default against Mike for not responding. And now that Mike has responded, IB wants that response stricken and a default entered anyways because IB does not have time to conduct discovery on Mike. The court date for this motion is Dec 17.

This is still pretrial. The trial date is still set for January 15, 2013.

XenForo just filed an opposition to this request. Basically XenForo refutes everything about the request, saying that IB is misstating and misrepresenting the history of the case in order to show "bad faith" by Mike in order to justify a default judgment against him. The court date for this motion is still Dec 17.

And IB just filed a reply in support of their motion. Again the central issue seems to be the misunderstanding about the fate of the TAC. IB would have this be a willful misunderstanding.

The court date for this motion is still Dec 17.

It appears that Mike will be filing another opposition on Dec 7 or very soon after. IB has opposed the idea of Mike filing another opposition. The court date for the original motion (for a default judgment against Mike) is still Dec 17, but it looks like we will get another opposition document from Mike before that date. Stay tuned.

 

[Jake Bunce]

Let's recap the last 8 months regarding the SAC/TAC/Mike stuff...

IB wants to file a TAC. Court says "yes" and "no." IB assumes "no." XF assumes "yes." Based on "yes," Mike does not file a response to the SAC because he is waiting for the TAC. Time is running out. The court clarifies that they meant "no." IB asks for a default against Mike for not responding to the SAC. Mike responds to the SAC. IB asks for a default against Mike anyways. Mike opposes. IB supports. Mike asks to oppose some more. IB opposes the idea of Mike opposing some more.