Karaoke Forums

What c. staley linked to only has Dennis Gorrel's name on it, not a Daniel Leimone.

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

These three defendants are in the same action. What gets "noticed" to any single defendant, get sent to the other two as well.

Didn't mean to cause any confusion if I did.

My point was that this was one of the very first lawsuits ever filed and it's still dragging along in court. I know that the courts there had problems of their own (a judge was murdered and all files had to be shifted around) but the lack of ANY substantial movement is ridiculous.

I doubt that HarringtonLaw will ever post any documentation to substantiate his claims - it's much easier to simply say; "I'm an attorney and you're not - therefore you are wrong."

It's just too bad that there are those that would somehow believe that. Just as Athena said in another thread about the safeharbor program that the paperwork was "attorney approved" as though it somehow made it automatically fair and legal.

There are exactly three defendants in the suit. They are:

Abraham Cortez
Daniel Leimone
Trey Pruitt

Dennis Gorrell was a defendant in the originally filed suit, but he could not be served, so he was voluntarily dismissed. My information is that he's out of the business now.

Boy now I'm really confused if the suit against Dennis Gorrel was voluntarily dismissed then whats the reason for Chips post.

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORP. v. DENNIS GORREL
THE HONORABLE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND CASE NO. 2:09-cv-1462-HRH
PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

Plaintiffs’ request for a status conference and/or continuance, filed November 14, 2011 (Docket No. 114), is denied as moot in view of the pending settlement conference.

Why are Y'all going to have a settlement conference on a suit that has been dismissed?
This gets weirder by the day

_________________
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

Not strange at all. What may be strange though, is regarding as legitimate the hearsay of one who is known for consistent misrepresentation and lying.
Here's a few legitimate quotes in regards Daniel Leimone:





And... this one's a doozy!

Nothing weird about it.

In federal court, the title that is given to the case in the beginning, referred to as the "caption," does not change unless there is an order from the judge or the clerk to change it. Mr. Gorrell was the first defendant in the list, so the case became Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation et al. v. Dennis Gorrel et al. when it was filed. (The term "et al." is short for "et alia," which is Latin for "and others." In computer records the "et al." is sometimes omitted.) Even though Mr. Gorrell was dismissed, the case continues to be known by that name.

Mr. Harrington, I find these remarks a little offensive. While I would consider myself to be more on "your side" of this, I do not consider myself "clueless". I am definitely not convinced the defendants are looking to settle, although that is a possible outcome. Please be careful regarding your generalisations in future. You realise of course, that you are on "your side" and have therefore labelled yourself as being "clueless"?

As far as the document posted by C. Staley is concerned, I have no idea why he is speculating it "should be interesting". To me, it is nothing more than the Judge stating there is no need for the requested status conference/continuance to go ahead because there is already a conference pending/scheduled.

No offense was intended, but I could have chosen my words better. I was referring to people who had commented on the situation with speculation. I find it interesting that the way a person speculates is so strongly correlated to their preconceived position. Neither "side" had enough facts to know what was going on.

And yet you still called "our side" clueless.
Funny that.

There is a very important point to be made here. So many settlements have been paid simply because an uneducated KJ took the above as factual, rather than educating themselves in ALL the facets of the karaoke business.

It dawns on me that so far, virtually all economic damage has only been done to those KJs that allowed it to happen.

The KJ was scared out of the business. ( Though if this happens, in many cases it's for good reason... )

The KJ allowed him/herself to be intimidated into a settlement.

The KJ didn't answer the suit, and therefore defaulted the judgement.

At the risk of repetitive redundancy: If you are going to own and run a business, LEARN THE BUSINESS!

If you are involved in litigation of ANY sort, never take the other side's ( ESPECIALLY their attorney's..) word for ANYTHING. They have their own agenda, and helping the opposition is NEVER part of it.

Music theives are slime, and deserve what they get. However, an uneducated KJ pretty much does it to him/herself as well.

Yup, I blame SC's methodology for problems caused KJs, but they couldn't do it if the legitimate KJs both knew the business, and were willing to fight back. Contingency lawyers love class action suits, and no cost to the KJs.

Education and a willingness to fight for the business that you've built. Kind of seems like a gimme, but that's just me.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Don't argue with him Murray, he's an attorney and you're not– that means you're wrong. (and probably clueless)

post for later

_________________
"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

more to follow

_________________
"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