Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Doc. 310, a paperless order, recently added to the docket:


    Quote

    ORDER denying 309 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiffs, somewhat inexplicably, continue to overlook and violate the deadline for filing pretrial motions, which has long since passed. Further, Plaintiffs continually fail to comply with the conferral requirements of the Local Rules. Future non-compliance will result in the imposition of sanctions. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga (CMA) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

  • Doc. 310, a paperless order, recently added to the docket:

    It may be a foreshadow of the trial. Notice she says " Plaintiffs, somewhat inexplicably, continue to overlook and violate the deadline for filing pretrial motions, which has long since passed. "


    Sounds a lot like the same modus operandi...Plaintiffs inexplicably overlook and violate deadlines for GPT.


    I still think that the whole case may be at risk for Rossi, just on the grounds of Doral not being the GPT. Then all the technical stuff and expert testimony will be of no relevance.

  • Sounds like judge Altonaga will not be putting up with shenanigans from either side.


    Shenanigans are particularly useful when one wants to confuse or obfuscate or misdirect (not naming any names).


    Let's see if Plaintiffs or Defendants try any shenanigans during the trial, it might be fun.

  • Which of Rossi's lawyers filed a 'motion to quit the case' ? Was it allowed or still to be ruled on?


    The motion for removal was granted, and included all of the lawyers in the firm that Annesser joined recently after leaving the Silver Law Group, except Chaiken. This could mean that the other lawyers did not want to be associated with Annesser and Chaiken, or it could simply be that Annesser and Chaiken, since they were consumed by this case, made the mutually agreable decision to do it on their own. The founder of Silver Law group that Annesser was with died last Fall, making it difficult to know or even guess what dynamics are/were in play. Another attorney from Silver recently joined Annesser and Chaiken, so presumably this re-formed group has some previous experience working together.


    That said, given these past several boneheaded motions by Annesser and Chaiken submitted to Sullivan and Altonaga, I think it's a safe bet that Perlman, Bajandas, Yevoli and Albright (and their associates) are greatly relieved to be officially off the case.

  • Maybe Italianlawyer can join their firm as well - I might be able to get partial naming rights to "Dewey, Cheatem and Howe LLP" if they'd like to expand on

    their field of expertise. Isn't it also amazing how the socks go quiet when there is a hearing - is somebody busy or something?

  • sigmoidal .... I think the dynamics in play would be: (1) ask the client whether you can quit working for him, (2) if client disagrees, ask the judge.


    Well, it's not all that important a point, but that's not quite what was going on.


    As a matter of law, an attorney cannot just stop representing a client with an active case before the Court (even if the client 'agrees' to it). Regardless of what is going on between the Attorneys and their client, any attorney(s) who are withdrawing from an active case must first ask the Court for permission to do so through a Motion. There are several ethical reasons why this is so if you think about it.


    But in this particular case, Rossi was initially represented by Silver Law Group (which included Annesser), not PBY&A. Then Annesser moved to PBY&A. This was a bit curious, and some speculated that Silver wanted to distance herself from Annesser. But then it was discovered Silver passed, and had been ill. Which might explain Annesser's move to PBY&A (or not). While Annesser was with PBY&A, all Motions and notices were filed and received in the name of the firm (PBY&A). Then PBY&A submitted a Motion to be removed with Annesser and Chaiken remaining. Altonaga granted the Motion, which pointed out that client Rossi would continue to be represented by the Attorneys who had been representing him all along. Again, questions can be raised. But it could reasonably be argued that this was just "keeping the records clean", while sorting out the disruption caused by a former principal's death.


    So one reason that I'm not quick to make any conclusions either way is that Rossi has been Annesser's client throughout. So it is not the case that Rossi has been 'lawyer hopping'. It IS the case that Annesser has been 'firm hopping'. But the fact that Silver died makes it hard to know what to make of Annesser's 'firm hopping', especially since one of Silver's attorneys has joined back with Annesser.


    In any case, here are two facts: Sullivan, who was obviously annoyed with Annesser, advised him to "put on your big boy pants". Altonaga, in today's motion, has advised Annesser that continued "inexplicable" Motions will result in sanctions.


    So I think it is safe to say that the evidence points to Annesser (and or Chaiken) making some significant strategic blunders in their behaviors and relationship with the Court.


    And they're in a hearing right now as we converse. So it will be interesting to see Altonaga's rulings on Spoilation, which should be available shortly.

  • you wonder whether all this is Annesser (who must know the score?) pushed by Rossi into doing something, or whether Annesser has some deep game plan like store up things for Appeal.

    Anneser's et.al. deep game plan is most likely to get as much of Rossi's, err IH's, money as possible. Maybe he has some of Rossi's, err IH's, condo's as collateral when the cash runs out (I'd assume since he's a lawyer, and know's Rossi, that any "agreements" are in-writing, notarized, and sealed in wax, and that no credit-account is being given).

  • Maybe Italianlawyer can join their firm as well - I might be able to get partial naming rights to "Dewey, Cheatem and Howe LLP" if they'd like to expand on

    their field of expertise. Isn't it also amazing how the socks go quiet when there is a hearing - is somebody busy or something?

    No, it's all quiet because we like listen your magnificent wirds. It's seems you are quiet obsessed by an Italian lawyer. You have mentioned me two times in few minutes... 😂😂😂

  • Entries for docs. 311 and 312 have appeared:


    What a teaser! We now know they met. And that there will be a pretrial conference on 6/13 (but we don't know what's on the agenda for that conference).


    And the Judge's rulings on all these Motions:

    ...

    [crickets]

    ...


    Well, that's a lot of Motions. So, I guess we're just going to have to wait...

  • It seems that Rossi did not meet the timing requirement as voiced in the depositions stating that the GPT timing was past before his move to Florida.

    Are you sure the delay in starting the test is to be attributed to Rossi? It seems that IH people have voluntarily lost some time saying that to get started an authorization was necessary but that one was late to arrive .....

    From 254: "It is undisputed that Defendant IH owned, controlled, and could have started testing the 1MW Plant at that or any time. See id. Yet Defendants prevented Plaintiffs from commencing the Guaranteed Performance Test in 2013 and 2014 by representing to Plaintiffs on numerous occasions that the parties needed authorization from a North Carolina Health Department but were unable to obtain such authorization. See SOFO ¶ 24. It was not until June of 2014 that Defendants received clearance from their nuclear radiation compliance consultant. See id. When, in June 2014, Plaintiffs brought to Defendants’ attention that Defendants had not – since 2013 – indicated where to install and operate the 1MW Plant, Defendant Darden responded that “ideally we would not make a decision about this new location for a while longer” and that the “decision [could] wait a while.” See id. Significantly, Defendants fail to identify a single written request made to Plaintiffs demanding that the GPT begin, or that Plaintiffs’ failure to timely assist in the commencement of the test amounted to a breach of the License Agreement or the expiration of the time for performance. As the delay in the test was caused by Defendants, they cannot now claim that Plaintiffs failed to timely perform as a result."

  • SSC

    you seem to be confusing the GPT of the second agreement with the 1MW trial;.

    I don't see that either the level of 1MW nor the customer was required for the GPT.


    The Six cylinder device was what was in the agreement not the 1MW system that was later.


    It was Rossi that wanted to do a 2year heat generation sell in Florida that was later.

  • Those swivel-heads surely don't know when to stay low. Of all days, they chose 5/22 & 5/23 to piss off the Judge - Itailianlawyer must be advising them.

    Insults as usual, Dewey ? Just for curiosity what do you have against 5/22 and 5/23 ? Memorial Day is on 5/29.

    Why italianlawyer ( is he/she really Italian ? and a real layer ? must be advising them ? what do you have against Italians ?

  • SSC

    By the way, I don't think it matter legally who caused a delay it is a matter of fact that it was delayed and past the required time window. If Rossi wanted to continue, he should have gotten a revision of the agreement signed by all three signatories to extend the time.

  • FWIW, I would consider Health, Regulatory, etc. permission/licensing/compliance -related delays to be legitimate Force Majeure conditions, since all parties would require the same approvals (etc.) and resultant delays in getting the said approvals, if they were to start a test independently of any contractual condition.

  • Insults as usual, Dewey ? Just for curiosity what do you have against 5/22 and 5/23 ? Memorial Day is on 5/29.

    Why italianlawyer ( is he/she really Italian ? and a real layer ? must be advising them ? what do you have against Italians ?

    He (me) is Italian and is a real lawyer specialized in Administrative law (which in Italy, more or less, means trials between a private and the Government). Unfortunately I can't advise Rossi because I'm not in contact with him and because Ip and usa civil procedure are not my field...

  • By the way, the situation is tense. Judge Altonaga will deposit her orders soon. And this will have a great impact on the trial. I don't comment other lawyer strategies, but It's evident that Judge doesn't appreciate Rossi's motions and their "aggressive" stance.

    And that's no good at all (for Rossi).

  • I am sure that the Judge has seen more "aggressive stance"s, posturing, and appeals to the public opinion as reflected through Documents and Motions, than anyone would care to.

    "S**t or get off the throne", my spouse would say". or "Bulls**t is great for the garden, but leaves a bad taste in your mouth, so I'm not kissing that!".

  • FWIW, I would consider Health, Regulatory, etc. permission/licensing/compliance -related delays to be legitimate Force Majeure conditions, since all parties would require the same approvals (etc.) and resultant delays in getting the said approvals, if they were to start a test independently of any contractual condition.


    I would be very surprised if the principals of a company that has specialised for many years in the remediation of brownfield land were not well-known and well-connected enough to beg a favour from the relevant H&S officials (or whoever) in terms of priority treatment of a request. But you never know.

  • I would be very surprised if the principals of a company that has specialised for many years in the remediation of brownfield land were not well-known and well-connected enough to beg a favour from the relevant H&S officials (or whoever) in terms of priority treatment of a request. But you never know.


    That is extreme speculation. I mean, I have no idea how favours work in US govt, and maybe just being a rich VC lets you ride over nuclear regulatory issues etc, but I can't see what remediation in real estate has to do with H&S regulation.


    In any case this whole meme about Darden did not allow Rossi to do the GPT needs much more care. I'm open for whether or not Darden put problems in Rossi's way doing this. RossiSays is likely here, because it could be Rossi refusing to do the test under terms that IH reckoned would allow proper validation, that gets turned into IH not allowing the test.


    Rossiesque language is known to come from Rossi repeatedly, and while it might come from IH as well we have much less evidence of that.