|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:13 pm |
|
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 |
|
|
mrmarog
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:44 pm |
|
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 |
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:33 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm Posts: 317 Been Liked: 18 times
|
|
Top |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:51 pm |
|
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....
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:13 am |
|
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 |
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:55 am |
|
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 |
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:23 pm |
|
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#1I 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_servedHowever, 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 |
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:20 pm |
|
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#1I 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_servedHowever, 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 |
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:11 pm |
|
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 |
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:27 am |
|
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 |
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:53 am |
|
|
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 |
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:35 am |
|
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 |
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:25 am |
|
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 |
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:31 am |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:41 pm |
|
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-3974I 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 |
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:46 am |
|
|
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-3974I 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? 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 |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:28 pm |
|
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. The guy made a mistake and acknowledged it. Next....
_________________ "No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
Top |
|
|
RaokeBoy
|
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:47 pm |
|
|
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 |
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:24 pm |
|
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-3974I 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 |
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:35 pm |
|
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 |
|
|
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
|
|