Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Defendants Amended Counterclaims against Plaintiffs and Memorandum of Law

  • IH Fanboy wrote:


    So much for the "IH is so sophisticated they would have definitely found Bass if he existed" shtick.


    Jed wrote:
    Does it occur to you they might have found him? That would be sophisticated.


    Just couldn't resist the poke Jed. The shtick was not "IH will eventually find him," but rather, the former.


    But hey, we're all here because we share a common interest. So when I poke, it is with at least a tinge of comradery.

  • Peter,


    reading the documents it looks pretty clear.


    45 – Amended answer – Just now allowed by Court


    41,39,46 (Rossi trying to stop this etc) – denied


    49 - IH withdraws motion for summary judgement because they have been allowed to amend their answer (which with the plaintiff's complaint/ reply would be judged). This withdrawal is unopposed (how could it be opposed!).


    I guess Rossi gets another chance to amend his reply, and then I'd expect another motion for summary judgement.


    this Court stuff will take a long time and much of it be irrelevant fluff - for example of the many different defences from IH only one needs to succeed, and they cannot ALL be true - being internally inconsistent as is normal.


    But I have to say IH looks to be in a good place here based on the relative coherence and substance of their arguments versus Rossi's so far.

  • Quote from IHFB

    But hey, we're all here because we share a common interest. So when I poke, it is with at least a tinge of comradery.


    This is a new one to me: a comradery troll? ("Poking" is what trolls do, designed to inflame feelings, or score PR points, rather than illuminate facts).

  • This is a new one to me: a comradery troll? ("Poking" is what trolls do, designed to inflame feelings, or score PR points, rather than illuminate facts).


    They are gentle pokes. And there will likely be more to come. It is important, I think, to remind people of strong positions they have taken in the past, which turn out to be fleeting. It helps illuminate how one might approach similar situations in the future.

  • Doesn't look like it's up until after a certain period of time, during which it seems there's a process for possibly making changes. After that deadline (?), it will be available through PACER. There are four dates mentioned in the placeholder note: 8/30/16, 10/11/2016, 10/20/2016 and 12/19/2016. Perhaps the transcript becomes available for download on 12/19/2016?


    Quote

    TRANSCRIPT of Discovery Hearing held on 8/30/16 before Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan, 1-44 pages, Court Reporter: Carl Schanzleh, 305-523-5635. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/11/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Designation Access Form)(hh)

  • Could someone call the court and try to find out when the transcript will be available for purchase?


    Notice that the phone number of the Court Reporter is available in what PACER provides. But it is possible that one could obtain it, but that distribution -- publication on-line of the contents -- would be prohibited. Read that notice carefully! The document may be redacted at the request of parties.