Invited in to help fight piracy!

Jennifer, I sicerely welome you aboard! I, probably more than anyone here, am verry happy to read a FULL report of your procedure, and it's aftermath. I pretty much knew, bt I wanted others here to read of your situation. Many thanks again!

Since no Non-Disclosure clause was signed, I hope Kurt might comment for SC in this thread.....

 

Actually, as owner of the company, I would say that he is responsible for it.
The first rule of business is that the workers' mistakes are ALWAYS the fault of the boss.
They either didn't train them correctly, wrongly instructed them, or just plain had a lapse of judgment on who they hired. Regardless of the reason, the boss must always take the ultimate blame when something goes wrong. If he doesn't, then rest assured, his company will eventually fail if changes are not made.
The lawyers were working under instruction from Sound Choice, the owner of which is Kurt.
It's no different if I hire a KJ to host for me and they botch the job by bumping singers and taking bribes, or getting drunk and passing out.
Who is to blame in that situation?
ME!
I am the one who hired the KJ in the first place, and I am the one who owns the company. If I'm not responsible, then who is?

 

Again I am in 100% agreement with Diafel on this issue!

 

That makes 3 times in two days that we agree. I think we're on an upswing here! LOL

 

Welcome Jennifer, it is always nice to see different situations and how they unfold.

 

And that would also apply to David Price regardless of who was running his system!

 

It sure would, except for the fact that someone said they SAW him running it personally. That person kinda loses credibility at that point, don't they?

 

Ok so maybe responsible was the wrong word. He may not be aware of the situation. Let's be fair to Kurt. The buck does automatically stop with him, so let's see how he responds.

 

Doesn't change the criteria for who they would file the suit on though!

 

Good question......Reading through Jennifers posts, she has experienced a VERY different situation than i went through. Believe me i'm paying attention.

 

But if your suit is based primarily on that person's "eye witness" account, and I believe it was, it makes the whole thing a moot point, doesn't it?
They can file all they want, but as soon as they step into a court room and the defendant points out that little fact, it's game over right now.

 

Actually first comes the answer from the defendant, which would have to state the defense that would be used, at that point the plaintiff would have the option of non-suiting the case and refiling it against the person who was running the system or simply ammending the complaint to include the person previously un-named.

Since the violation is real it doesn't matter who was actually running the system as the owner would be the responsible party. If the information available was that Jo Boss was the owner and operator of the system anyone running it would be assumed to be Joe Boss, the filing would still be good even if it were a John Doe naming.

As for the name David, I know two girls who go by that name, my wife's legal name is Joe (although she goes by Jo), also know two girls named Mike and one named Mack all their real given names.

So an error made to the identity of the actual person running the system is what is a moot point!

 

Not really. The person apparently stated they say him running the show. Credibility is gone at that point. All anybody has to do is ask, "And how do you know that it was so-and-so running the show?"
Either they say they know so-and-so and could identify him that way or they say they "assumed" it was him.
Either way, their credibility is shot.
Seriously Thunder, you can argue the point all you want, but check Jennifer's posts and you will see that even the SC lawyer apparently admitted that there was no suit because of it.
It's pretty open and shut.

 

He didn't admit that this would be dismissed, but he didn't try to give me any reasons that it wouldn't be dismissed... The suit said that David price was operating... Jennifer Price was operating and Jennifer Price is a co-owner, so any way you slice this pie, I should have been named on the suit. I was named in the settlement....

 

Again, I or anyone else can file a John Doe suit and then ammend the complaint at a later date to include the actual name of the person being sued. As to who was doing what, it is not really a concern of the actual filing, it may or may not have some bearing in testimony.

In a criminal case identifying the perp has a tremendous amount of weight, but ina civil case like this it isn't so much a matter of who was running it but the fact that it was being run in a public venue displaying the SC logo and who owns it, since both David and Jennifer are listed as co-owners either one or both being named wouldn't make any difference as to the outcome, neither would the fact of who was running it!

 

Sorry, Jennifer. I work for a law firm. There is not a settlement that goes through an attorney that does not get an a-o-kay from the client. I highly doubt that the attorney did anything that wasn't directed by the company. Attorneys don't act independently. If they do and their clients don't like their actions, they can be sued for malpractice or grieved with the attorney grievance board of the state in which they work. Do not for a minute believe that the heads of this company were ignorant of what their attorney was doing, or that they weren't driving the bus here.

I hope you get what you're due.

 

Jennifer,

All practicing attorneys are snake oil salesman regardless of who they are representing, in general they are out to make the most money as quickly and easily as possible while keeping their client's best interest at heart (most of the time), but no one is required to sign their name on the dotted line of an agreement until they actually agree with it.

 

As soon as I see "in a criminal case", I tend to shut down at this point.
Apples and oranges.
And you're totally missing the point, Thunder. They claim he was seen operating the system when he was nowhere to be found. You just can't justify that, not matter how you try. It just doesn't work.
Anyone with common sense, which a judge is paid to use, can see that credibility is lost when such a situation arises.
For example, what else were they completely wrong about? Not mistaken, but COMPLETELY WRONG (ie; LYING ABOUT)!
Although the plaintiff can continue in such a suit, chances are pretty high that it will get nowhere because of credibility issues, which, in such a case, would not be that hard to show!
I'm done arguing with you over this. Either you can see the logic or you can't.

 

I have to say, that I've had several PM's from Kurt today and a quite long email. I have responded to him with my complaints and I really do believe he will listen to what I have to say. When it comes to the settlement. I signed and I'm obligated. I can live with that.

 

Glad to hear it! I hope he makes good for you!