All about to kick off....

Discussion in 'Laser Class Politics' started by Laser Tim, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. whatever

    whatever Member

    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Have Kirby's lawyers screwed up?

    There are recent documents regarding Rastegar asking for a default judgement, PSA explaining its failure to respond to the original claims (counterclaims?) against PSA within the appropriate time and Rastegar responding again.

    Note that I am not a lawyer, so my analysis is probably flawed.

    It appears that PSA failed to respond to Rastegar's claims/counterclaims within the appropriate time limit and now Rastegar is asking for a default judgement. For foreign companies, I think that default judgements can be meaningless (depending on where they are and where they do business) so it is possible that PSA and Kirby's lawyers initially decided to ignore the claims against PSA, but later decided that success by Rastegar could be a problem for PSA if PSA ever shipped boats to the USA. So, now PSA has responded to the request for default judgement, but the reasons for the delay appear weak ("gathering information"). Also I would have expected PSA to ask the court to allow the delay, but failed to do this.

    So, in summary, I think that Rastegar has a good chance of getting the default judgement against PSA. I suspect that this will be largely meaningless and it certainly does not reflect anything about the merits of either side's behaviour.

    Documents 86, 99, 100 and 107.
    http://ia801604.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.docket.html
     
  2. Mrs. P

    Mrs. P Member

    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I don't think Kirby's lawyers screwed up because BK/BKI is represented by someone different than GS and PSA.

    Interesting that they filed for a default judgment against PSA but not GS. Even if they were to be granted a default judgment I'm not sure what they gain (not that I even know what I'm talking about). The relief Rastegar sought in his counterclaims was for items (a) through (k) in Doc. 40 and PSA is only mentioned in (d) and (e) for a "judgment amount to be determined in trial in excess of ..." Does that mean they would get the "excess of" amount or the "amount to be determined in trial" or is it ambiguous? Who knows. Maybe the Judge will just deny the default motion and grant PSA's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. whatever

    whatever Member

    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    You are correct. I thought when looking at the lawyers' names there was an overlap between Kirrby and PSA, but now I see that I am mistaken.

    I also don't understand how the money judgement would be determined. But, as I mentioned, even if there is a default money judgement against PSA, Rastegar would not be able to enforce it.

    As for dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, I think that Rastegar's arguments that PSA's reply is too late has a strong chance of succeeding.

    So, why, given the above, did PSA spend money on lawyers to submit the replies?
     
  4. whatever

    whatever Member

    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
  5. Gantt

    Gantt Member

    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    All this reminds me of races with no wind. Progress is made, but it's agonisingly slow.
     
  6. mental floss

    mental floss Member

    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Have you ever known attorneys being paid by the billable "hour" to be in a hurry to finish any case?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 28, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. whatever

    whatever Member

    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    There has been some action today. Various motions to dismiss granted. Looks like I was wrong about Rastegar's attempt to get a default judgement against PSA -- that motion was denied.

    So, as far as I can see, ISAF, Velum and Karaya are dismissed as defendants. Of course appeals are possible.
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.117.0.pdf
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. UK Laser Sailor

    UK Laser Sailor Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    So barring appeals, Karaya, Velum, ISAF and Farzad himself can pay the lawyers and leave the field of play?
    Didn't see Karaya or Velum having to stick around too long.
    Was not sure about ISAF.
    Shame about Farzad. Would have been intreseting to have more information about the man and his companies come out in the court action.

    I can see ISAF staff and Farzad himself back as "witness" when we get to the Kirby v LP in the courtroom.

    With Karaya and Velum out the "lawsuit". Can Kirby now take his trademark case off hold? Wonder how quickly he will do this to keep the pressure up on the Farzad web of companies?

    Let hope thing start to move abit quicker now. End of the day, we just want to go sailing. A stable class and builders be nice.
     
  9. whatever

    whatever Member

    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Farzad is still a defendant (and counter-claim plaintiff, I think), as are Laser Performance Europe and Quarter Moon.

    ILCA is still a defendant -- does the ILCA have the funds to pay for lawyers to properly defend itself?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2014
  10. dingyj #22

    dingyj #22 Member

    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I deal with blood sucker, criminals and attorneys, hey look its almost April im going sailing...Forgot about it.....
     
  11. Mrs. P

    Mrs. P Member

    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The Velum and Karaya trademark cancellation cases are still proceeding along:
    http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?...name=&pop=&pn=bruce+kirby&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=

    Kirby's trademark application for the LASER trademark is on hold pending the outcome of these cases. Not related to the Kirby v. LP lawsuit. So Velum and Karaya still have to defend themselves and the cancellation case is probably quite a bit stronger than the LP case anyway.

    ISAF got away clean but maybe there was a confidential settlement or something and Kirby let them out. Who knows.
     
  12. whatever

    whatever Member

    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I looked at those documents. It's going to be quite a long time before there are any decisions.

    Did you notice the mistake by the USPTO? Instead of sending a letter to Jersey, they sent it to New Jersey! Whoops!
     
  13. UK Laser Sailor

    UK Laser Sailor Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
  14. Mrs. P

    Mrs. P Member

    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    On Feb. 21, 2014, ISAF, Rastegar, Karaya and Velum were all dismissed from the Kirby v. Laser Performance lawsuit. It's been a month and there have been no announcements. The forums aren't even discussing, questioning or speculating. Sounds like a confidential settlement to me. If ISAF or Rastegar had been granted a dismissal flat out, surely they'd be announcing it to the world.

    The LASER US trademark cancellation proceedings have had yet another extension filed. Sounds like there is movement behind the scenes on that front as well.

    I hope, I hope, I hope this is all good news for Kirby.
     
  15. whatever

    whatever Member

    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    We discussed this earlier. See above.
    Again, see above. The dismissal was made by the judge in response to motions by ISAF, etc. But I think that you are wrong in one respect, Rastegar has not been dismissed.
     
  16. Mrs. P

    Mrs. P Member

    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Right. Except for the above discussion, there has been no one else talking about the dismissals. Surely, ISAF would have announced their dismissal (if they could).

    The dismissed defendants were ISAF (Doc 63), Karaya & Vellum (Doc 38) and Rastegar (Doc 39). I'm pretty sure Rastegar is no longer a defendant and I would suspect that he was also dropped as a plaintiff on the counterclaim when he was released from the lawsuit.

    But, let's recap what happened. On 1-27-14 there was a hearing on the 38, 39 and 63 motions to dismiss. The Judge entered a "sealed" notice to counsel (Doc 103). Other stuff happened then on 2-14-14 there were "sealed" responses regarding the 103 Sealed Order filed and the attachments to the sealed responses were 4 letters. I'm pretty sure that "sealed" is often code for confidential settlement negotiations. Then on 2-27-14 (13 days later) the Judge grants the dismissals on the three motions along with some other stuff. A month passes and no one has gone public with an announcement about the dismissals. ISAF being dismissed does not seem like a non-noteworthy event. No boasting, no mention in passing, no discussions (other than above) on the forums. Has to be a confidential settlement/agreement/truce with those parties.
     
  17. whatever

    whatever Member

    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8

    Wow! I really suck at reading the documents. I must be more careful in future.

    But I think that the dismissals reflect the parties narrowing down the issues to a small number of key issues. People tend to throw everything into a lawsuit at the beginning and, after motion practice, various issues are decided and only a subset of issues actually go to trial. In this case, I think that you are probably right about the discussions leading to dismissals -- but I suspect that this is merely a normal culling of the extraneous issues rather than anything particularly revealing about the progress of the case.

    It's possible that ISAF made some concessions in order to be dismissed, but Kirby already agreed to dismiss ISAF (and then reneged, possibly because ISAF reneged on the terms of whatever agreement was in place). It might be interesting to look for any changes in approach from ISAF to Lasers/Torch dinghies in the future.
     
  18. ang

    ang Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    [​IMG]

    So lp usa is lying
     
  19. torrid

    torrid Just sailing

    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    About...?
     
  20. ang

    ang Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    About where the boat is made. Andy at Tackle Shack said they are still made in the UK
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2014

Share This Page