LFL v SDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by exoray+Feb 10 2006, 12:41 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Feb 10 2006, 12:41 PM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-foxbatkllr
@Feb 10 2006, 03:32 PM
You are correct.  Federal courts have no special appearance rule.  Rule 12b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the rules for a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  Most states allow you to object to jurisdiction without submitting yourself to the jurisdiction of the court.  Sorry, I'm still learning.
[snapback]1181057[/snapback]​

And under that rule this is what I believe to be most important here...

(B) How Presented.

Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,  (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, (3) improper venue, (4) insufficiency of process, (5) insufficiency of service of process, (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at the trial any defense in law or fact to that claim for relief. If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

In short you can answer with certain types of motions...
[snapback]1181065[/snapback]​
[/b]

Yup, I got mixed up between Fed and State courts. My trusty copy of FRCP set me straight though.
 
Does anybody find it funny that his California attorney is Will Robinson?

He hired a Lost in Space character in a Star Wars case, you just can't cross universes like that.

:D
 
Originally posted by micdavis@Feb 10 2006, 05:08 PM
Does anybody find it funny that his California attorney is Will Robinson?

He hired a Lost in Space character in a Star Wars case, you just can't cross universes like that.

:D
[snapback]1181090[/snapback]​

Too damn funny. :)

"Danger AA. Danger AA."

Bruce
 
Originally posted by micdavis@Feb 10 2006, 04:08 PM
Does anybody find it funny that his California attorney is Will Robinson?

He hired a Lost in Space character in a Star Wars case, you just can't cross universes like that.

:D
[snapback]1181090[/snapback]​


:lol

Never thought of that.

And yes, that's the picture. :lol

I still think it comes down to a money issue. His team took a shot, believed they could get it tossed, it wasn't so he's backed off so it's not a long fight in another nation. Maybe he/they just gambled and lost.
 
Originally posted by KarlBud420+Feb 10 2006, 04:30 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KarlBud420 @ Feb 10 2006, 04:30 PM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-micdavis
@Feb 10 2006, 05:08 PM
Does anybody find it funny that his California attorney is Will Robinson?

He hired a Lost in Space character in a Star Wars case, you just can't cross universes like that.

:D
[snapback]1181090[/snapback]​

Too damn funny. :)

"Danger AA. Danger AA."

Bruce
[snapback]1181117[/snapback]​
[/b]

:lol :lol :lol
 
Originally posted by apollo+Feb 10 2006, 09:33 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apollo @ Feb 10 2006, 09:33 PM)</div>
Originally posted by KarlBud420@Feb 10 2006, 04:30 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-micdavis
@Feb 10 2006, 05:08 PM
Does anybody find it funny that his California attorney is Will Robinson?

He hired a Lost in Space character in a Star Wars case, you just can't cross universes like that.

:D
[snapback]1181090[/snapback]​


Too damn funny. :)

"Danger AA. Danger AA."

Bruce
[snapback]1181117[/snapback]​

:lol :lol :lol
[snapback]1181121[/snapback]​
[/b]

Now THAT is good comedy. ^_^ Will Robinson.
 
Originally posted by Jackie_Chan_Fan@Feb 11 2006, 06:48 AM
Didnt AA ignore a Cease and Desist?
[snapback]1181615[/snapback]​
Yup, and basically defaulted on this judgement. Only he and his lawyers know where his head is, and the theory of him running out of money to keep this case going just rings more and more true. LFL has much deeper pockets.
 
I think it was his legal team that would've made that decision, not AA.

If I were in trouble and decided to make the calls, I know what my legal team's reaction would be.............. :lol

Only in some hick town a few dozen years ago, where the judge was also the local pig farmer, would you get away with self representation. I think that even then you'd only get off if you were young and virile and the judge needed someone to sire his sow :lol

So, I don't know if AA lawyers have something up their selves or not. I CAN (almost) guarantee though, that AA was "advised" to take this course, I'm sure he didn't make that decision himself.

But, Hey, I'm not a Lawyer, it's just an opinion.

Cheers,

Kraig

Edet: I spellded rong, heyuk heyuk.
 
I'm no lawyer - but I've watched a lot on TV and I therefore feel fully qualified to sort this all out.

Looking at the docket
REQUEST for Entry of Default of Defendants Shepperton Design Studios Limited and Andrew Ainsworth filed by Plaintiff Lucasfilm Ltd. (dw, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

It's alllll so obvious I'm amazed no-one else has spotted it.

The default thingy (technical term) won't be entered until until 2nd August 2006 (02/08/2006) - which is still six months away.

I also noticed a schoolboy error on this summons:
Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint, [21] as to Defendants Shepperton Design Studios Limited, Andrew Ainsworth, Does. (dw, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)

Which clearly states the '25th' month.

















;)
 
Originally posted by JediCarl@Feb 10 2006, 12:08 AM
laugh.gif
  How predictable.

How much more obvious does it have to be that AA has been full of crap all along?

This clinches it for me. LFL is in the right and has the facts to prove it. They were going to nail him. He knew this and that he would lose if it went to court, so a Default allows his to save as much face as possible.
[snapback]1180494[/snapback]​

Maybe AA just doesn't have the $$ to go against the big money LFL lawyers. I would think that is a great possibility. Im not saying I am agree with AA (I am reluctant to state whether I am pro LFL or pro AA) but just consider that possibility.
 
Originally posted by Blad@Feb 11 2006, 07:33 AM

I also noticed a schoolboy error on this summons:
Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint, [21] as to Defendants Shepperton Design Studios Limited, Andrew Ainsworth, Does. (dw, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)

Which clearly states the '25th' month.


Where do you see a mention of the 25th month? Isn't it referring to November 29th, 2005?
 
Originally posted by Blad@Feb 11 2006, 12:33 PM

The default thingy (technical term) won't be entered until until 2nd August 2006 (02/08/2006) - which is still six months away.



Month/Day/Year....

Welcome to the Western world. ;)




Russ
 
This is how the Federal government, especially the military, writes dates: 11 February 2006.

Civilians write it: February 11, 2006.

If you think about it, it makes more sense to write it day, month, year. From a smaller length of time to a larger, instead of jumbling it up.
 
Western world???

In the UK, dates are written in the day/month/year format...being a brit now living in the US, I always have to change it around to month/day/year...bloody colonials.

:p

Cheers, Gord.
 
Originally posted by Darth Bill+Feb 11 2006, 03:13 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Bill @ Feb 11 2006, 03:13 PM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Blad
@Feb 11 2006, 12:33 PM

The default thingy (technical term) won't be entered until until 2nd August 2006 (02/08/2006) - which is still six months away.



Month/Day/Year....

Welcome to the Western world. ;)




Russ
[snapback]1181698[/snapback]​
[/b]

the majority of forms i fill out here in canada are day month year, and last time i checked i live in the western world :rolleyes
 
Originally posted by mez7+Feb 11 2006, 05:54 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mez7 @ Feb 11 2006, 05:54 PM)</div>
Originally posted by Darth Bill@Feb 11 2006, 03:13 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Blad
@Feb 11 2006, 12:33 PM

The default thingy (technical term) won't be entered until until 2nd August 2006 (02/08/2006) - which is still six months away.




Month/Day/Year....

Welcome to the Western world. ;)




Russ
[snapback]1181698[/snapback]​

the majority of forms i fill out here in canada are day month year, and last time i checked i live in the western world :rolleyes
[snapback]1181964[/snapback]​
[/b]
Yeah, as Americans, we are the oddballs who write MM/DD/YY. The rest of the western world/military goes DD/MM/YY. when I was in Food Service, we did it DD/MM/YY. We will fight the metric system though...thank you Stone Cutters..
 
Originally posted by stonky+Feb 11 2006, 02:43 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(stonky @ Feb 11 2006, 02:43 PM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Blad
@Feb 11 2006, 07:33 AM

I also noticed a schoolboy error on this summons:
Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint, [21] as to Defendants Shepperton Design Studios Limited, Andrew Ainsworth, Does. (dw, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)

Which clearly states the '25th' month.


Where do you see a mention of the 25th month? Isn't it referring to November 29th, 2005?
[snapback]1181681[/snapback]​
[/b]


You're obviously right Stonky - I compounded the Schoolboy error, by making my own Schoolboy error.

I'll get my coat...
 
Hey guy... I am do not really understand the technical issues of this.
Its to much info for me to get grip of what is happening..

Does this mean I should go NOW and Buy a helmet before it is to late?
Or is it to Late to buy a helmet? Please advice.. Send me a Pm if possible because I do not understand English writing and grammar with legal words that much :)

Sew me if you think I am stupid :D hehe
BTW.. Did a spellcheck.. If you dont understand... Sew Microsoft. :lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top