Search results

I doubt it. The dismissal is: 1. LPE's claims against PSA and 2. some (not all) of LPE's claims against Global Sailing. See attachment.

"Sailboats Limited" shows as recently dissolved. According to the registration of sailboats.co.uk, the domain name is owned by: "A.T Lincoln & A.W Lincoln t/a Northampton Sail Boats". "Northampton Sailboats Limited". was dissolved in 1991. So it looks like the business is owned by the two...

Or the builder is building to tighter tolerances.

Looks like the lawsuit schedule has moved back again: Docket Text: ORDER RE SCHEDULING: This case shall proceed pursuant to the following schedule. All discovery shall be completed by 12/19/2014. Dispositive motions shall be filed by 1/19/2015. Counterclaim defendant Performance Sailcraft Pty...

Rastegar wants more time to produce the discovery.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.163.0.pdf

Discovery disputes are very common in lawsuits. There is supposed to be a mandatory settlement conference in October. I expect that that will be a very short meeting! "Trial ready date" is scheduled for October 20. I wonder when the motions to delay that will happen?

There was a status update of the lawsuit posted (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.155.0.pdf). Not much chance of a settlement at this time: B. INTEREST IN REFERRAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES The parties attended mediation on June 18 and 19. The parties...

Perhaps they could buy some from PSA?

The way the rules work, each builder has freedom to optimize its profits. Assuming the cost to build a boat is fixed (this may not be strictly accurate, but for a first order approximation, it's probably OK). The builder can increase prices, which will increase the profit per boat. However...

A mediator has been appointed and a very short meeting has taken place with the parties and the mediator.

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...

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.

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!

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?

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...

New status report. Most parties open to mediation, but Rastegar, Karaya and Velum are not interested, while his other companies (QM and LPE) want more discovery before mediation. Kirby plans to add another party to the lawsuit (as well as amending the complaint). Who could that additional...

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...

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...

This is interesting: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.76.0.pdf It was originally filed under seal (ISAF marked it confidential), but later unsealed. It appears from the letter that there was an understanding between ISAF and Kirby that ISAF would be...