Karaoke Forums

That's a non-denial if ever I've seen one.

It's misleading to suggest your total is from all California settlements, because the court was only addressing the most recent suit at the time of only 70 operators and of only the handful that had settled by that point in time.

The actual court document is specific in it's wording and
that document paints a picture of a very profitable scheme:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 1326874990
From page 6:


Notice the judge said “so far”. And the judge specifically said “resulted in more than $180,000 in settlement payments”.



This document was filed on January 17, 2012. By the 18th a total of 16 defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit. At least four of those were venues. And one of them was a disc based KJ who was sued in error. That leaves 15 entities that paid a total of $180,000.00 or an average of $12,000.00 each. There were still 55 defendants from that suit yet to settle. So, by dropping a few thousand in expenses on a single group-suit they walk away with $180,000 in less than three months and still have potential to milk it for an even greater amount in addition to that. Multiply that by each city or each district the lawsuit express rolls into and you are talking about some serious money.

Now, back to the figures, the $12k per defendant is too high for the stated KJ settlement, so the difference must be getting made up by venues. Venues pay a higher settlement because they have deeper pockets, and can actually meet the payments. This is why a new number of $40k has been getting tossed about. Notice the recent suits in Oregon are against venues. It’s easier money.
Do you think it will be easier to find a venue willing to engage in karaoke after the lawsuit machine comes through a town to milk all the venues dry?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The problem with your "argument" is that you are starting from false information: a misstatement from the judge in an unrelated case.



It is a misstatement. (Judges sometimes make mistakes of fact.) The actual amount in received payments is far less than that. The $180,000 is a gross figure for all settlements in California to that point, and I don't believe there have been any in California since then. It does not reflect any of the expenses of producing that income.



Your figures pile inference on inference. First, the "average of $12,000 each" does not take into account multi-system operators. Moreover, not every defendant who is dismissed settled the case. It's also not "a few thousand in expenses," particularly when you take into account the legal fees. Finally, you're disregarding the fact that the case management firm handling that area owes SC more than $150,000 in unremitted settlements (that we know of) and was fired in February for that, among other things.



The $40,000 figure (actually $44,000) is for default judgments, not settlements.

Now, why would a KJ claim to be 1:1 if they didn't own the discs to all the tracks they converted onto a HD? As for the result of an Audit proving otherwise, could that be the result of owning discs that they bought through a reputable dealer/s, which ended up being copies that they were not aware of (for example, some of the discs that Chrisavis purchased, which were deemed counterfeit at his SC Audit)?

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it repeatedly. I'm guessing they think we won't check, or be thorough enough to catch them.




That's relatively rare also. Almost all of the originals we see are genuine.

Get glasses and read it again S-L-O-W-L-Y.

[quote=Harrinton Law]It is a misstatement. (Judges sometimes make mistakes of fact.)[/quote]
amazing....every time something goes against SC it is "the judge made a mistake".
this judge made a mistake, the Vegas judge made a mistake......

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

Why not tell all the good readers here exactly what and who is involved the "unrelated case." Because it's CAVS vs Slep-Tone Entertainment. A case that you are not only familiar with, but you are also the attorney of record which would make you intimately familiar with it.

Now, since that's out of the way, let's address the "misstatement" your complaining about. You're claiming that his statement that SC had received "so far" $180,000 is somehow wrong.



The judge may have misspoke about whether it was collected or not but thanks for confirming that this portion of his statement is absolutely correct.....

You still have that amount in "judgments."



Are you whining? Collections is just another part of the benefits of being in the business world. You don't dispute the 180k figure so I'd suggest you get in touch with a compay to factor (purchase your recievables for a discount in exchange for immediate payment) the outstanding debt.

It's still one hundred eighty thousand dollars.... as far as expense are concerned, spend it however you like, but you're not getting any sympathy from my side of this fence.


Nice try.

Chip,
If you are going to use a quote from me in your signature line at least use the entire quote.
I dont misquote you so please dont misquote me.

Thank You in advance for correcting or removing it

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

They weren't judgements, they were settlements.
But in spite of that misstatement, I still agree:

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

How exactly did the judge's misstatement of fact--which was at best tangential to the issue before him--amount to "something [that] goes against SC"?

Look, he got it wrong. SC has not received anywhere close to $180,000 in revenue from California settlements. It didn't matter to that ultimate issue, but I'm not going to sit here and have that false statement used to make a different point that's fundamentally untrue.



The judge in Nevada didn't make a mistake. I'm not sure where you're getting that. The problem was that the attorney failed to do what she said she would do, and failed to keep SC informed about what was going on. That problem has been resolved.

I believe that Smoothedge is commenting on the fact that whenever there seems any type of circumstance that is not favorable to sound choice, there seems to be some sort of excuse to explain it away.

For example, in the Rodney case alone:
1. The investigator was apparently confused.
2. The investigator refused to turn over (a possibly non-existent) report to you or anyone else.
3. The attorney did not act on the client's requests, or did not act on them for weeks. (this is the "rogue attorney" syndrome)

in the Las Vegas case, it seems as though:

1. The attorney had been constantly missing deadlines for filings and responses.

2. While there were two attorneys, one of them has apparently been fired, while the other one has apparently never really done anything.

3. The current attorney (you) has also missed several important deadlines for responses.


And now we see that while you freely do not dispute that there has been at least $180,000 in settlements against defendants in California, there is suddenly something wrong with that, because (a) is a gross amount and not a net amount, (b) not all of that has actually been received and (c) once again, you placed the burden of responsibility on the case management company who has yet to pay you.

It is always seems to be someone else's fault doesn't it?

You're welcome, however it is already correct and not a misquote in the least.



BTW, the word "don't" is a contraction of "do not." it should contain an apostrophe to indicate such.

Just doing my part to be helpful.

Bright Blessings.

This is not accurate in the slightest.

If you are suggesting that this is not accurate "in the slightest":



Then I'd suggest you take action against the owner/writer.

I don't have time to concern myself with what some lawyer who's trolling for clients has to say. But if he said that, (1) it's not "several important deadlines," to use your phrase, and (2) he didn't read the part of my motion in which I said that we concurred with the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order that was filed by one of the defendants. The purpose in asking for additional time was to see if a joint plan could be proposed. We were unable to reach agreement. The judge recently ordered us to try again this week.