Courtesy of Google cache:
Why does LaserPerformance not enter into mediation with the parties concerned?
LaserPerformance has agreed in multiple instances to meet and mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby Inc. Before Mr. Kirby initiated his lawsuit, LaserPerformance met with ISAF and ILCA and agreed to use mediation to resolve contractual issues amongst all parties involved including Global Sailing and PSA. The response from Mr. Kirby was negative and a lawsuit was launched against LaserPerformance. Subsequently ISAF and ILCA met with LaserPerformance and we renewed our call for mediation. This initiative was again rejected Bruce Kirby and Global Sailing Ltd.
LP's claim doesn't seem to match the recently posted status report, where everyone except LP, Global Sailing and PSA have agreed to some kind of mediation: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.95.0.pdfHokem! I believe LP offered to enter into NON-BINDING mediation. Meaning after you come to an agreement on how to proceed forward, Rastegar can still do whatever the heck he wants. How many people out there would spend good money to enter into non-binding mediation with Rastegar?
LP's claim doesn't seem to match the recently posted status report, where everyone except LP, Global Sailing and PSA have agreed to some kind of mediation: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.95.0.pdf
Global Sailing and PSA are involved in the lawsuit as "Additional counterclaim defendants"So you mean ILCA, ISAF and BKI then.
As far as I am aware Global Sailing no longer has anything to do with this as they sold the rights back to BKI.....
My non-lawyer's thoughts: I would not read too much into the sealing at this stage. Some lawyers explained why their motions should be accepted, others explained why not. The motions concerned dropping the claims against various parties. The judge will take some time to decide. You can read the motions here: http://ia801604.us.archive.org/30/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.docket.html -- look for 38, 39 and 63.I would guess this is because of the ongoing mediation/talks between the parties. They don;t want too much getting out into the public domain until these conclude or fall apart.
I think you are reading too much into the addition of another lawyer, although it might indicate that Rastegar is preparing for a continuing fight. I don't think that anyone knows the outcomes of the dismissal motions yet..... The recent motions were all motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The addition of a local firm (as opposed to the NY firm) would seem to indicate the motions were denied and Rastegar is now adding a local firm that has some history/experience with the court.
While it does seem unlikely, Rastegar's position is that he has already overpaid the royalties. In any case, I think that past royalties are not the main concern here -- it's who has the rights to build Lasers (or Kirby Sailboats).Adding another firm to the legal team wouldn't make any sense if the dismissal motions were still pending or dismissal had been granted. Surely, it would have been cheaper to just pay the royalties he owes.
ISAF refused to recognize Kirby's rights and refused to instruct the ILCA to stop issuing plaques until after Kirby had been forced to file suit. Less than a month after Kirby filed suit ISAF sent that confidential letter and ISAF also made a public announcement that they recognized Kirby's complaint as legitimate and instructed the ILCA to stop issuing the plaques. Then ISAF ratified the rule change.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 dropped from the lawsuit if ISAF told ICLA to stop issuing plaques to LaserPerformance and Quarter Moon. ISAF claims in the letter that it complied. However, subsequently Kirby did not dismiss ISAF -- why not?
Have Kirby's lawyers screwed up?
I don't think Kirby's lawyers screwed up because BK/BKI is represented by someone different than GS and PSA.
All this reminds me of races with no wind. Progress is made, but it's agonisingly slow.
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.
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?
The Velum and Karaya trademark cancellation cases are still proceeding along:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pno=&propno=&qs=&propnameop=&propname=&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.
We discussed this earlier. See above.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.
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.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.
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.