KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - Las Vegas Suits Dismissed.... Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Legalities & Piracy, etc... Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Mon Jan 06, 2025 7:27 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 486 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 25  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
If you mean a response from me, I think that I have mentioned that the statements I make in regard to the SC association are only as experienced in my area, though Mr. Boo has the same problem, and I think Paradigm brought it up too.

However, as another poster mentioned, if SC is telling Safe Harbor venues that they MUST hire their version of host, I guess those hosts would benefit in regard to those venues that agree to having their business decisions made by another company....

Speaking of which, I'm still awaiting an answer regarding a Listing of venues in in the program. I only see a listing of KJs who comply to SC's will- no venues.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:44 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 3801
Images: 1
Location: Florida
Been Liked: 1612 times
JoeChartreuse wrote:
Speaking of which, I'm still awaiting an answer regarding a Listing of venues in in the program. I only see a listing of KJs who comply to SC's will- no venues.

I would be very interested in seeing that as well. If we knew who are the "Safe" venues, then we "safe" hosts could target those venues. Only SC has the key to all this potential.


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:33 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
JoeChartreuse wrote:
If you mean a response from me.


I do not.

This is not about you.

It is about this:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27562&start=20#p357999

_________________
-- Mark


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:51 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
Insane KJ wrote:
JoeChartreuse wrote:
If you mean a response from me.


I do not.

This is not about you.

It is about this:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27562&start=20#p357999


Whoops, sorry.... :oops:

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:13 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
Insane KJ wrote:
Robert Kossack esq has publicly posted on his blog that SC filed a separate lawsuit in Las Vegas against Tara King dba DJ Tara King Productions by the March 1st 2013 deadline.

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... g/summary/

Here is the Kossack blog article:

http://soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com/a ... -only-two/

According to Mr. Kossack's blog, he is representing Ms. King pro-bono.

Also if you need to refresh yourselves on what has happened in the original Las Vegas Lawsuit that was filed by Donna Boris at request of APS & Associates, allegedly against Slep-Tone's wishes, here is extensive Docket Text followed by the Dismissal Orders:

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... cket-text/

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada ... 239/85925/


It has now been over 20 days since counsel, working pro-bono, for Tara King has acknowledged the lawsuit brought forth by Slep-Tone against Ms. King on March 1st 2013 by publishing his blog post. As of today, April 6th 2013, there has been no answer to the complaint by the defendant.

Since Mr. Kossack published his original blog post on March 15th 2013, can we assume that Ms. King had been served by this date? Has Robert J. Kossack Esq missed an important filing deadline? If not served, Ms. King would obviously know through Mr. Kossack and/or his March 15th 2013 blog post, that a complaint was filed on March 1st 2013. So why has Ms. King not even filed a Motion to Dismiss under an Insufficiency of Service of Process?

20 days are up! Will Slep-Tone now file a Motion for Default Judgement?

One question left unasked.... Did Tara King settle out-of-court?

_________________
-- Mark


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:55 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
I looked at the case filings on Pacer, and it doesn't look like the Defendant has even been served yet. Until the suit is actually served, the time for filing an Answer doesn't even start.

By the way...where did you get the 20 day reference? In a Federal case, you have 21 days from the time you are served to file an Answer.

Looking in your crystal ball again, Insane? I think you're speculating, and with very little information. I'll grab my popcorn.

_________________
Birdofsong


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:23 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
birdofsong wrote:
By the way...where did you get the 20 day reference? In a Federal case, you have 21 days from the time you are served to file an Answer.


http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/CivilSH ... nse.html#1

I would stand corrected since my reference is from Clark County NV. If the Fed allows for 21 days, then we will see if something is filed by Monday. However this citation for Federal response time is also 20 days.

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) specifies that a party has 20 days to file an answer after they are served with a complaint."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_do_y ... _is_served

However, counsel for Tara King was aware of the lawsuit on March 15th 2013. If she was yet to be served, a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of Insufficiency of Service of Process should be filed within the 20 day response time from March 15th which was yesterday Friday April 5th, correct?

_________________
-- Mark


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:20 pm 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
Insane KJ wrote:
birdofsong wrote:
By the way...where did you get the 20 day reference? In a Federal case, you have 21 days from the time you are served to file an Answer.


http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/CivilSH ... nse.html#1

I would stand corrected since my reference is from Clark County NV. If the Fed allows for 21 days, then we will see if something is filed by Monday. However this citation for Federal response time is also 20 days.

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) specifies that a party has 20 days to file an answer after they are served with a complaint."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_do_y ... _is_served

However, counsel for Tara King was aware of the lawsuit on March 15th 2013. If she was yet to be served, a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of Insufficiency of Service of Process should be filed within the 20 day response time from March 15th which was yesterday Friday April 5th, correct?


Wrong.

Once a Summons and Complaint is filed with the Court, the Plaintiff literally has MONTHS to serve the Complaint on the Defendant. Since no Proof of Service has been filed with the Court, there is no clear indication that the Defendant had been served. Being aware of a lawsuit has been filed against you is not the same as being served.

If the suit is never served, then the Summons expires and the Court will automatically dismiss the case for lack of service. No motion needs to be filed by an unserved defendant.

If the Plaintiff is having trouble serving the Defendant, they can file a Motion for Substituted Service, or for an extension of time for service.

At this point, based on the court's docket, nothing has happened except the suit has been filed. Period.

_________________
Birdofsong


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:11 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
birdofsong wrote:
Once a Summons and Complaint is filed with the Court, the Plaintiff literally has MONTHS to serve the Complaint on the Defendant.


How many months and where did you get that reference?

Also why wouldn't Kossack, Tara King's pro-bono counsel who was the first to publicize this case, jump on a dismissal motion immediately if no service has been made to his client?

_________________
-- Mark


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:27 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5107
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
Insane KJ wrote:
How many months and where did you get that reference?

she works in a legal office with attorneys every day, i can give her this.

Insane KJ wrote:
Also why wouldn't Kossack, Tara King's pro-bono counsel who was the first to publicize this case, jump on a dismissal motion immediately if no service has been made to his client?

birdofsong wrote:
"If the suit is never served, then the Summons expires and the Court will automatically dismiss the case for lack of service. No motion needs to be filed by an unserved defendant. "

it comes down to how long before the summons expires. is it one standard length or does it vary by state as other things do?

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:53 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Rule 4(m) specifies 120 days from the filing date for completion of service of process, but that date may be extended by the court for good cause.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:35 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
Insane KJ wrote:
birdofsong wrote:
Once a Summons and Complaint is filed with the Court, the Plaintiff literally has MONTHS to serve the Complaint on the Defendant.


How many months and where did you get that reference?

Also why wouldn't Kossack, Tara King's pro-bono counsel who was the first to publicize this case, jump on a dismissal motion immediately if no service has been made to his client?


Thanks, Mr. Harrington. You beat me to it. So basically, Insane, the Summons would not yet have expired. It is still active and the case cannot be dismissed for lack of progress until the Summons expires.

As far as a motion to dismiss, you don't understand. If a person is not served, they're not going to file ANYTHING in that case, because they are not yet an active party. If it is not served before the summons expires, and no motion is made by the plaintiff to extend the summons or for alternate service if they are having trouble serving it, then the Court will dismiss the case, itself. It is the Judge that moves for the dismissal in a case with no progress.

So basically, you're a bit premature on your concerns over the filing of an Answer to the Complaint.

_________________
Birdofsong


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:25 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
HarringtonLaw wrote:
Rule 4(m) specifies 120 days from the filing date for completion of service of process, but that date may be extended by the court for good cause.


Thank you for this information James.

My ignorance of proceedings allowed me to jump the gun on this thread. I stand corrected.

I see now that a plaintiff has to serve a defendant within 120 days of filing a complaint and according to the docket, Ms. King has yet to be served even though Mr. Kossack, her pro-bono counsel, is aware of the lawsuit.

We shall see what happens next by June 1st 2013 or sooner.

_________________
-- Mark


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:31 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Insane KJ wrote:
HarringtonLaw wrote:
Rule 4(m) specifies 120 days from the filing date for completion of service of process, but that date may be extended by the court for good cause.


Thank you for this information James.

My ignorance of proceedings allowed me to jump the gun on this thread. I stand corrected.

I see now that a plaintiff has to serve a defendant within 120 days of filing a complaint and according to the docket, Ms. King has yet to be served even though Mr. Kossack, her pro-bono counsel, is aware of the lawsuit.

We shall see what happens next by June 1st 2013 or sooner.


Because this suit is a continuation of the previous suit, I'm not certain that she has to be served again. However, if we have to serve her again, we will.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:41 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
Robert J. Kossack Esq who was representing Tara King pro-bono was kind enough to answer my questions within my original comment on his blog, with his own comment in bold type. I post it here to further acknowledge that I stand corrected to my previous post.

"Tara King has not been served with the new complaint. No answer is due. Kossack has not missed any deadline. Kossack does not at the time represent King relative to the new suit. Kossack is not authorized to accept service on behalf of King. Slep-Tone is in no position to file a motion for a default judgment against King. King has not settled with Slep-Tone. Your host."

http://soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com/a ... mment-3974

I appreciate him setting me straight by giving me the answers that she has yet to be served, so no deadlines were missed. Also correcting me on that SC can not file for default, and informing me that she has not settled with SC. However, it was curious to see that Mr. Kossack is no longer representing Ms. King. I wonder why?

_________________
-- Mark


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:46 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
Insane KJ wrote:
Robert J. Kossack Esq who was representing Tara King pro-bono was kind enough to answer my questions within my original comment on his blog, with his own comment in bold type. I post it here to further acknowledge that I stand corrected to my previous post.

"Tara King has not been served with the new complaint. No answer is due. Kossack has not missed any deadline. Kossack does not at the time represent King relative to the new suit. Kossack is not authorized to accept service on behalf of King. Slep-Tone is in no position to file a motion for a default judgment against King. King has not settled with Slep-Tone. Your host."

http://soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com/a ... mment-3974

I appreciate him setting me straight by giving me the answers that she has yet to be served, so no deadlines were missed. Also correcting me on that SC can not file for default, and informing me that she has not settled with SC. However, it was curious to see that Mr. Kossack is no longer representing Ms. King. I wonder why?


8) My goodness you didn't get something right Insane, I guess you do put your pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us mortals, I'm sure once in awhile even James makes a mistake? Have an Insane day.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:28 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
The Lone Ranger wrote:


My goodness you didn't get something right Insane, I guess you do put your pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us mortals, I'm sure once in awhile even James makes a mistake? Have an Insane day.


Not helpful. :roll:
The guy made a mistake and acknowledged it. Next....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:47 pm 
Offline
Senior Poster
Senior Poster

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:07 pm
Posts: 110
Been Liked: 16 times
Wasn't Slep-tone sanctioned in Florida case? Did they pay? What other sanctions have courts hit them with? Paid them?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:24 pm 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
Insane KJ wrote:
Robert J. Kossack Esq who was representing Tara King pro-bono was kind enough to answer my questions within my original comment on his blog, with his own comment in bold type. I post it here to further acknowledge that I stand corrected to my previous post.

"Tara King has not been served with the new complaint. No answer is due. Kossack has not missed any deadline. Kossack does not at the time represent King relative to the new suit. Kossack is not authorized to accept service on behalf of King. Slep-Tone is in no position to file a motion for a default judgment against King. King has not settled with Slep-Tone. Your host."

http://soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com/a ... mment-3974

I appreciate him setting me straight by giving me the answers that she has yet to be served, so no deadlines were missed. Also correcting me on that SC can not file for default, and informing me that she has not settled with SC. However, it was curious to see that Mr. Kossack is no longer representing Ms. King. I wonder why?


You say that "Mr. Kossack is no longer representing Ms. King." You're jumping to conclusions again. She hasn't been served and he isn't accepting service on her behalf. That doesn't mean that once she is served, he won't be the one representing her at that time.

_________________
Birdofsong


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:35 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
RaokeBoy wrote:
Wasn't Slep-tone sanctioned in Florida case? Did they pay? What other sanctions have courts hit them with? Paid them?


Well, looks like they didn't get hit with Contempt, but they DID have to pay, and that check was cut. Yes, they paid, as they should have.

I only hope that this puts at least some damper on their "Leap before you look" policy of litigation......but unfortunately, they don't strike me as those who learn from their mistakes.


I'm still waiting for the class action suit that I feel SC deserves- but I do believe it will happen at some point.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 486 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 25  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech