Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
lawsuit
Check out the 11-25-03 entry:
http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Docket2.htm Chuck Gadd http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
lawsuit
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
lawsuit
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
lawsuit
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The baseless lawsuit against Don Imus by Kia Vaughn has been withdrawn. | Ponds | |||
Pets Warehouse lawsuit | Freshwater Aquaria Plants | |||
Shades of the Petswarehouse Lawsuit! | Freshwater Aquaria Plants |