Karaoke Forums

Why interesting. It sounds as though the Defendant is looking to settle and at least some form of agreement/settlement is in the works which is why the judge has denied conference. It looks as if this case is pretty well finished except for crossing the t's and dotting the i's. And if it isn't, then I would presume the judge will rule on the status conference and/or continuance. It appears to me that the Defendants have folded.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Speculation again?

"some form of agreement/settlement is in the works " that the plaintiff wants to avoid and delay?

It doesn't matter "what it appears to you" it matters "what appears" with the court.

Break out the popcorn...

I believe the conference is just part of the whole process and ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Where I am, part of the process, at least for child custody and divorce, is a settlement conference. It's just a mandatory part of the process that the court hopes will result in a settlement rather than hitting the inside of a courtroom. What it really is, is a big waste of time. Of note, though, is that usually in these conferences, ALL evidence must be made available and once finished, you cannot bring in new evidence further in the court process. The mandatory conferences rarely result in a settlement being struck and only serves to fan the flames, so to speak.
The last time I heard from Dan Dan, he was eager to get on with it and was getting a little sick of having things dragged out, so my bet is that this settlement conference is just such a court requirement. The fact that the judge denied a continuance probably just means that it's too close to the conference itself and/or that the plaintiff has been dragging their heels long enough and the judge has had enough of those kind of games.

Diafel is right. A settlement conference is ordered as a matter of course for EVERY civil case. This is standard operating procedure and means nothing.

_________________
Birdofsong

We aren't interested in avoiding or delaying anything, and there is not "some form of agreement/settlement" in the works.

We were instructed by the Court to discuss trial dates with the defendants or to request a scheduling conference. I spoke briefly with the other attorney who represents a defendant, and he hadn't spoken with his client about dates yet. I could not reach the two pro se defendants. So at the deadline I asked the Court to either set a scheduling conference or allow us more time to discuss dates, whichever the Court preferred. The judge decided instead to set it for a settlement conference instead, which is fine with us.

I find it interesting that people who are more on "our side" of this are convinced that this means the defendants are looking to settle, while the people who oppose our position are convinced even more strongly that the judge is somehow punishing us for misbehavior.

Both sides are clueless. I have no idea whether any of the defendants want to settle this or not. We're always willing to talk about settlement, but there have been no discussions. And anyone who thinks the judge is "punishing" us is engaged in wishful thinking that says more about them than about us or the court case.

I don't see anything written anywhere that points to any type of "punishing" going on. But you must admit, this particular case has been "on hold" for a very long time despite the changes made by the courts. And that includes any "discussions" initiated by the plaintiff. This case has been dragging on for two years, and while I am aware that there were plenty of changes in Arizona because of some tragic events in the courts, there should have been at least minimal movement in this file. While it has always appeared as though the defendant is unwilling to budge, it is also apparent that the plaintiff is not motivated to continue.

I'm not sure why you think there hasn't been "movement in this file" or why you think "the plaintiff is not motivated to continue." The parties have completed Rule 12 motions and discovery. Nobody filed any dispositive motions, so we're on to final pre-trial. The judge asked us to consult regarding trial dates, and when we weren't able to come to a conclusion before the deadline, we asked the court to have a scheduling conference. Rather than doing that right away, the judge decided to send us to a judicial settlement conference instead.

What is going on here is that you, Mr. Staley, have decided that Sound Choice is in a weak position and is looking to exit, when in fact we are the only party that's pushing forward to a trial. Your assumptions are counterfactual. The only logical conclusion, then, is that your views are motivated by wishful thinking.

Correct me if I am wrong counsel, but isn't it the plaintiffs duty to "push forward to a trial?" I believe that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff not on the defendant.

Please point out to me where I have ever implied that "sound choice in a weak position and is looking to exit" because I don't see it anywhere. I also don't see any assumptions above either. All I suggested is that we "get the popcorn."

You seem to get your panties in a bunch every time I post something directly off of pacer– which happened to be the facts in the file. And your "logical conclusion" is neither logical nor a conclusion.

nice try

Jim. I stand corrected on my speculation, however I am correct in saying it is nothing interesting and just a part of the procedure.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

You're talking about two different things.

The plaintiff does not have a "duty to push forward to a trial." Trials happen in due course, and it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff (or any party) to "push" for that to occur.

Yes, the plaintiff has the burden of proof of infringement in a trademark infringement case, but that has nothing to do with "pushing for a trial."



When you say "it is also apparent that the plaintiff is not motivated to continue," you are implying that we somehow don't want the case to go forward, as though there is some weakness in our case. And when you say that, you are assuming and suggesting to others that we were trying to keep the court from scheduling a trial, when in fact the opposite is true.

it is also apparent that the plaintiff is not motivated to continue
You seem to get your panties in a bunch every time I post something directly off of pacer– which happened to be the facts in the file. And your "logical conclusion" is neither logical nor a conclusion.

nice try[/quote]

Funny how when someone challenges your innuendoes and half-truths, you accuse them of "getting their panties in bunch." You may have posted something off PACER, but you didn't post the whole thing, and you used your omission as an opportunity to bend the "story" to fit your fantasy narrative that SC is somehow in trouble with this litigation.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth to serve your agenda. Let's see.... this suit was filed when? TWO YEARS AGO.... Even if I give the court 4-6 months to fix their own problems, that's still a very long time to get only up to a settlement conference.... you know it, I know it and you're banking that no one else does. So when I say "not motivated" that's exactly what it is but the easiest thing for you to do is to continually pawn off the delays on everything/one else. I get it, you're the real victim here.



Who exactly is "bending the truth here?"

Rather than argue it out with you, let's let the readers decide:

The link below is the FULL PDF issued by the court in this matter, YOU decide what and how much I have ALLEGEDLY "omitted."

Case 2:09-cv-01462-HRH Document 119 Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 1

http://dkusa.com/CHB/CompleteOrder.pdf

Mr. Harrington;

Just to clarify where blame ( or credit ) is due:

It was I that was speculating on the weakness of your case. However, I never claimed that you were attempting to exit it ( though it would probably be for the best for SC).

Again, my hope is that it goes all the way through the court system, and that Dan Dan has made proper preparations. I am not so much interested in the outcome for Dan Dan's sake, but rather to see an end to both the speculation and ( in the event of a loss by SC) SC's actions against those who have never been investigated properly.

I would also hope ( again, in the event of a loss by SC, ) that those who may have been damaged ( other than the real pirates-track thieves) use the legal system to recoup THEIR losses.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Dennis Gorrel is Dan Dan?

If we could have had a trial in January I'd be quite happy. I've actually been ready to try this since March, but we had to give the defendants time to have discovery on their defenses. They did very little, and the pro se defendants did none.

We suggested a judicial settlement conference precisely because the defendants don't seem very motivated to go to trial. I doubt it will result in a settlement, but if it does, great. Regardless, these aren't our delays alone, and they are not uncommon in complex cases (which this is, because of the presence of non-participating and pro se defendants).



You didn't post the court's order regarding setting trial dates, nor did you post our reponse to that order. If you had, the people who are reading this thread would have seen that we told the court we were ready for trial but suggested that the defendants might take a different view that they hadn't been able to articulate yet. But that would have blown a hole in your theories about the case, so you omitted it.

Theories?

Then by all means, post your copy of all the other documents relating to this case and explain them, it's all there for anyone to access and I've anted up... more than once.... your turn.

Nope! Dennis Gorrel is d/b/a Big D Productions.

Dan Dan is Daniel Leimone

SO everything after Chips post about Dennis is basically moot as the OP was about Dan.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Nope. There are at least three defendants in the suit, two of whom are Dan and Dennis.

Yes but Chips post only stated SC Vs Dennis Gorrel and the OP is only about Dan

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

I believe it's the SAME case. Ruling on one defendant applies to them ALL unless otherwise stated by the judge.