Karaoke Forums

That's not what was being said by Timberlea at all. It is just another attempt at obfuscation by you making a statement in the guise of a question.

To clear confusion for everyone else, "Ernie", the defendant, signed a settlement agreement with Sound Choice, the plaintiff, before the case was dismissed. The case was summarily dismissed because Sound Choice failed to respond to the motion of dismissal that was submitted by "Ernie". Failure to respond is taken by the court as consent to grant the motion.

Consenting to have a case dismissed after settlement has been reached is not an admission that the plaintiff did not have a valid case to begin with. Further, a settlement is not a loss, or a win. It is a settlement!

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I guess by some other's logic here, a procedural motion is the same as a trial.... therefore Ernie's "trial" against SC just didn't work out for them did it?

[quote="Lonman]
In this area I do not consider a KJ without SC tracks on an even playing field - it still is the preferred choice to the majority[/quote]

Well, that's your area. In the areas where karaoke has been the longest, SC is just another decent brand, but is behind several others in popularity. Long-timers rate them somewhere around 5th- after CB for country, MM for oldies, DK for bunches of stuff, and in some areas Legends. Zoom has overtaken them in many areas as well. Also, please keep in mind that except for a single release in 2009, they haven't done a thing since 2007, and are really no longer a player at all.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

2) I don't see how you can equate a loss to a settlement which preceded and takes precedence over any further court action. Ernie settled with SC before the judgement so the judgement of default is null and void.[/quote]


1) Nope, I'm just saying that SC defaulted to Ernie because THEY KNEW they didn't have a case- and couldn't be caught setting a precedent in court and losing their current form of income.

2) Wait. Are you saying that when SC wins by default it's a precedent, but when they lose it doesn't count? Neither one is a precedent.

Your info regarding Ernie is incorrect. He paid a VERY small piece of the settlement, then it went to court, SC defaulted, and Ernie was left in the clear. The court case did that for him. He owes nothing further, and SC is SOL. The default is valid, and the "Settlement" became null and void.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Wrong! SC failed to respond to the motion to dismiss. Ernie requested the motion to dismiss while he and SC were arranging a settlement agreement and he did not notify SC he had done so as required by law. After filing the motion to dismiss, Ernie signed the settlement agreement. SC already had a settlement and therefore did not need to proceed further with the case. Your reasoning regarding precedent is pure speculation.

Comprehension is a wonderful thing isn't it? Lack of proper comprehension only leaves you confused and results in obfuscation of the facts. Improperly quoting others as saying what you have said also obfuscates the facts.


Yes, Ernie had a settlement agreement with SC. He only paid a small part of that settlement. That is to say, Ernie defaulted on the settlement which he had signed. Once the settlement agreement was signed by both parties, there was no need for SC to proceed with the case and it would be dismissed anyway. That doesn't relieve Ernie of the obligation to uphold his end of the settlement contract.

After spending a long day coding, the programmers wife asked him to pick some things up at the store.
She said "Get a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs, get 6"
Shortly afterwards, he came home with 6 loaves of bread, when asked about this he simply said "they had eggs"

Exactly. It means if SC were the ogres that anti SC paint them out to be, they'd just sue the pants off of Ernie for defaulting and the judgement for that may include Ernie's discs that were given him has to be returned.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Actually, if I recall correctly, the motion to dismiss was granted BEFORE Ernie signed the settlement agreement. He did not know that it had been granted and the SC lawyer neglected to inform him of such, despite being aware of it himself. THAT is what makes the settlement agreement null and void.

read again diafel....Ernie settled by his own admission months prior to the dismissal

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

an entire thread can be found here...in Ernie's posts he lists the timeline
http://general-forums.com/threads/quest ... its.33386/

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

. Well, considering this was posted on Aug 28 and the order to dismiss was made on Nov 17, it appears Ernie had already settled before the summary dismissal.



I have seen no reason to dispute what Sound Choice has stated, as it seems to corroborate what Ernie stated in the above quote.

This response to Ernie by Sound Choice seems to indicate Ernie had made settlement payments well before the date of dismissalI think we can agree that both Ernie's statement of Aug 28 and Sound Choice's statements would establish the fact that the settlement was in fact agreed to well before the summary dismissal on Nov 17.

Yeah still much further ahead in the times over DK, which has been around here since 89 or 90 - SC came on the scene around here in 93 or so. The true karaoke afcianados do not classify DK as high end due to the wrong keys & audible guide melody. But i've never stated anything about SC on current releases, obviously other brands have to take that place. But newer music has never been the drive for us, it's always been music from the 70's-90's and now adding more from early-mid 2000's, even though I continue to purchase the Chartbuster monthlies for newer music - which are 100 fold better than they used to produce, except for a handful of songs, they do not get a lot of use. The requested songs (for both songs that get sung & songs people want me to get) still are heavily from the 80's-90's. So not really worried about them not being a player anymore, don't recall the last DK disc released.
Cb has always been great on country, MM no one likes much and I usually have to replace versions - although I don't have alot anymore. The oldies & Elvis discs I heard other than the fact you couldn't get them anywhere else, still sucked sound quality wise, but since they are the only versions - they are the greatest!. Zoom I have stuff that isn't available anywhere, thus again making them the greatest versions - although they really do happen to sound good although I have heard some versions that people brought in that sounded as bad if not worse than MM.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Can anyone contact Ernie to get an update on how his settlement has played out so far so we can stop speculating?

Perhaps he can post an update here in a new thread.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

No speculation required... From both Ernie's and Sound Choice's statements and from documented proceedings, we know the following facts.

1) Ernest McCuller was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Sound Choice.

2) Ernest McCuller signed a settlement agreement with Kurt Slep of Sound Choice in regards to that case.

3) The case was summarily dismissed.

In other words, case was settled and then dismissed. No speculation there!

I see your point. I wonder how much Ernie had to pay. It seems that there were some differences as opposed to the standard settlement. I could be wrong. Just hoping that Ernie would chime in.

_________________
"Just Say NO, To Justin Bieber & His Beatle Haircut"

Murray C the speculation seems to be if the settlement or the dismissal would be binding. Some here seem to think the settlement would be set aside by the dismissal so that is why it was suggested Erine be contacted

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

With Ernie's propensity to obfuscate the facts, I would not take anything he says as to it's face value. Of course there is nothing to stop a copy of the settlement agreement being posted here, unless it violates the KS forum rules.

If Ernie signed before the court dismissed it - he is on the hook for the settlement.

Sound Choice can file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement only. The actual suit has been (and is) dead and gone.

There are other issues at hand too, if SC failed on any part of the same settlement agreement, such as not delivering a product as promised, they would have (now) a tougher time to enforce the settlement.

I'm surprised they haven't done anything.... unless they have those sort of issues.

I do believe from statements I have read from both Ernie and Kurt Slep that the promised product was, in fact, delivered.

Not sure if SC would be able to just file a motion though. If the case has already been dismissed due to the plaintiff's non-response, I'm not sure if the court would maintain jurisdiction over the settlement. Maybe SC would have to file a new suit for breach of contract.