|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
Insane KJ
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:07 am |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
|
|
EDIT: Double post as threads have been merged.
Insane KJ 3/24/13
_________________
-- Mark
Last edited by Insane KJ on Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
MIKE D
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:11 pm |
|
 |
| Senior Poster |
 |
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:44 pm
Posts: 116
Been Liked: 15 times
|
|
put this in front of a jury and sound choice is going to get there
a## handed to them
time to reach deep in to that pocket and then some
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:41 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
And on what legal basis do you make that statement? It will depend on how the jury will take the statement. Is it libelous or is it poor sentence construction? If deemed poor sentence structure, it will go to SC. If the jury can't come to an agreement then it will go to SC. If the jury sees it as libelous, then to CAVs. It is far from a slam dunk for CAVs.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
Last edited by timberlea on Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:25 am |
|
|
| Extreme Plus Poster |
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
|
timberlea wrote: And on what legal basis do you make that statement? It will depend on how the jury will take the statement. Is it libelous or is it poor sentence construction, it will go to SC. If the jury can't come to an agreement then it will go to SC. If the jury sees it as libelous, then to CAVs. It is far from a slam dunk for CAVs.  I'm just pleased that for once it isn't the little guy v.s. the big company, but rather two Titans of the industry going after each other. I hope that this case does go to a jury trial, just to see what happens. One thing is for sure if it goes badly for SC and they have to pay a large settlement, if that happens, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Have a blessed day.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:31 am |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
|
While I would be happy with anything that would give SC a whack on the bazoo these days- just in the name of karma, I don't see this case as as anything that will affect my business one way or the other. Just can't get excited about it.
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
RaokeBoy
|
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:59 pm |
|
|
| Senior Poster |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:07 pm
Posts: 110
Been Liked: 16 times
|
Insane KJ wrote: Looks like a jury at trial will see the arguments CAVS has brought against Slep-Tone for libel in California if CAVS U.S.A. decides to take it to trial. Judge Pregerson denied the summary judgement motion yesterday, March 21st 2013, finding that the evidence brought by CAVS is ambiguous and that a jury needs to decide the case. See Doc# 86 ~ http://dockets.justia.com/docket/califo ... 74/506315/The Judge has been denying other motions by CAVS recently as well. (Doc#'s 78, 80) This is related to the Karaoke Kandy Store case. A recent reversal of a summary judgement the Karaoke Kandy Store was granted is discussed in this other thread: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27423Also here is the original thread from when CAVS first filed suit against Slep-Tone: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=21897Insane - Your mention of Judge Pregerson's order was substantially incomplete. You selectively skipped over the first part where he discussed and ultimately denied Sound Choice's motion for summary judgment where SC had asserted that it has immunity for its e-mail statement of "illegal karaoke CAVS units."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:43 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
|
RaokeBoy wrote:
Insane - Your mention of Judge Pregerson's order was substantially incomplete.
It is irrelevant. My comments were to point out that the case is going to a jury trial. No Phantom Cat here.
_________________
-- Mark
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 96 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
