lawsuit

[Chuck Gadd]

Check out the 11-25-03 entry:

http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Docket2.htm


Chuck Gadd
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua

[Dinky]

"Chuck Gadd" > wrote in message
...
> Check out the 11-25-03 entry:
>
> http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Docket2.htm
>
>
> Chuck Gadd
> http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua


Mumbo Jumbo to me, but....dismissed? Hooray!

[Eric Schreiber]

Chuck Gadd > wrote:

>Check out the 11-25-03 entry:
>http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Docket2.htm

I love it when appropriate things happen to deserving people.

(is that legally sanitized enough to avoid a lawsuit?)


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Chuck Gadd]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 01:55:25 GMT, "Dinky"
> wrote:

>
>Mumbo Jumbo to me, but....dismissed? Hooray!

Yup, I count 8 motions to dismiss granted. Not completely gone yet,
but it's getting there.


Chuck Gadd
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua

[Dinky]

"Eric Schreiber" > wrote in message
...
>
> (is that legally sanitized enough to avoid a lawsuit?)
>

Doubt it. <bg>

[Dave Engle]

"Chuck Gadd" > wrote in message
...
> Yup, I count 8 motions to dismiss granted. Not completely gone
yet,
> but it's getting there.

It looks to me like Robert H's motion to dismiss was the only one not
granted. Anyone know why that might be?

I sure am glad that things seem to be going in the right direction,
though, and I certainly hope that Mr. Novak gets everything that he
deserves.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Engle
DFW, TX USA
Independent Associate
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
http://www.prepaidlegal.com/go/dengle

[Robert H]

Eric Schreiber > wrote in message >...
> Chuck Gadd > wrote:
>
> >Check out the 11-25-03 entry:
> >http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Docket2.htm
>
> I love it when appropriate things happen to deserving people.
>
> (is that legally sanitized enough to avoid a lawsuit?)

It was dismissed against all but one person. Me. Like I said, it ain't over yet.

[Jim Seidman]

"Dave Engle" > wrote in message >...
> It looks to me like Robert H's motion to dismiss was the only one not
> granted. Anyone know why that might be?

I'm not a lawyer, but here's my interpretation of what the judge said.

Basically, the motions to dismiss were based on issues of personal
jurisdiction. The court in New York doesn't have the right to try a
case against people who don't live there, conduct business there,
visit there, etc. Even if someone does have a connection to New York,
it has to have some relation to the legal case for the court to exert
jurisdiction.

In Robert H's case, the judge decided that the Aqua Botanic website
was interactive enough to consitute doing business in New York, since
New York residents may use it. Given that one of Novak's complaints
related specifically to the use of his trademark on the website, that
provided enough of a link for the court to assert jurisdiction.

For everyone else, the link between the defendants and New York was
too tenuous. The websites belonging to other defendants were not
interactive (in the sense of hosting a forum or selling product) and
thus didn't trigger jurisdiction.

- Jim

[Bob Alston]

Agree. Once the full text of the Judge's order became available, the
rationale you stated became clear.

--
Bob Alston

bobalston9 AT aol DOT com
"Jim Seidman" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dave Engle" > wrote in message
>...
> > It looks to me like Robert H's motion to dismiss was the only one not
> > granted. Anyone know why that might be?
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but here's my interpretation of what the judge said.
>
> Basically, the motions to dismiss were based on issues of personal
> jurisdiction. The court in New York doesn't have the right to try a
> case against people who don't live there, conduct business there,
> visit there, etc. Even if someone does have a connection to New York,
> it has to have some relation to the legal case for the court to exert
> jurisdiction.
>
> In Robert H's case, the judge decided that the Aqua Botanic website
> was interactive enough to consitute doing business in New York, since
> New York residents may use it. Given that one of Novak's complaints
> related specifically to the use of his trademark on the website, that
> provided enough of a link for the court to assert jurisdiction.
>
> For everyone else, the link between the defendants and New York was
> too tenuous. The websites belonging to other defendants were not
> interactive (in the sense of hosting a forum or selling product) and
> thus didn't trigger jurisdiction.
>
> - Jim