Ongoing Saga of the Lawsuit
Alright, with PACER, I have to pay per page. I am not willing to pay for "Notices of Appearances" which is a lawyer saying they're going to be the ones trying the case; nor "Certificates of Service" which just says that people were served. Basically, anything I deem trivial minutiae is not something I'm willing to pay for. If you wish to sign up for your own account there and pay for all of that, just google Pacer and it'll come up.
That said, as I figured there would be, there's been more filings in the case. I'm compiling them here for you to read.
Complaint This is the orignal suit filed by Andrew.
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Defendant's Reply in Support of Brief to Dismiss
Andrew (Founder of AFF) is Plaintiff and John (Current CEO) is the Defendant.
The hearing on whether or not the court will dismiss is scheduled via Zoom on March 7 at 11am PT.
I'll check PACER on the 8th for that ruling.
TLDR
It boils down to this. Andrew bailed out the company back in ‘21, buying up all the senior debt. Knowing he didn't have the time/energy to run the company, he and the current CEO entered an agreement whereby Johnny boy would buy the controlling company shares for a total of $1000 becoming the president. In that agreement there was an option for Andrew to pay $1000 to exercise his right to purchase the controlling shares back. Andrew tried to exercise that right last year. John said no by sending back the check three times. Andrew filed the lawsuit. In motion to dismiss, John says that since Andrew didn't give the $1000 right away, he waited too long and can't exercise the right to buy shares. In the contract they signed, he's well within the 13 years denoted. They're squabbling over "meaningful time frame" because though the option was defined as within 13 years, when the $1000 had to be paid was not explicitly defined.
My slightly educated guess is that the case will survive the motion to dismiss. When the money had to be paid is a fact in dispute, and that is an issue that a jury will have to decide.
When first presiding over a US civil case, the judge looks at the motions in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. It presumes all the things the plaintiff put in the original complaint and following motions are true. It isn’t until the trial that things become unbiased.
For a summary of the lawsuit, please feel free to read the summary below. I was asked to write one for the Online Personals Watch website:
I really hope that Andrew is victorious. We don't need a weasel at the helm.
ReplyDeleteI suspect it will survive the motion to dismiss. Facts are in dispute, that’s for a jury to decide
DeleteThanks. As points of law / interpretation of contract, I find interesting he chose trial by jury and not bench (judge).
ReplyDeleteWelcome. It is an interesting choice, especially given the technicalities around this case. This is not widget was contracted to be built and didn’t get done. This is way more convoluted.
Delete✔️
ReplyDeleteThanks for the TLDR (and explaining wth it means). 🤡
ReplyDeleteLol. You’re welcome
DeleteInteresting stuff. Thanks for the heads up. 👍
ReplyDeleteYou’re welcome
DeleteI hope you'll message me on Facebook. We're trying to get the group going again.
ReplyDeleteHon I don’t have Facebook anymore. But if you guys wanna do it, I can use Nick’s facebook to participate.
Delete