Ed's Bootlegs (inc. Supreme Court summons), not so legal after all? Options

[Hobbsy]

Ed's wanna get out of this with the least publicity possible.

He obviously doesn't want to damage his reputation any more than he already has so settling out of court makes sense.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when he agrees to never use the Ed from +LIVE+ tag ever again and has to fork over a shitload of funds he claimed to be his.

Bring it on I say!

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Which suit is being settled? The money or the trademark?

[OutToDry]

Which suit is being settled? The money or the trademark?

i might infer #1..... go back a few pages.

[OutToDry]

The legal system usually takes many years and a lot of money before you reach a conclusion reached by 12 usually inexperienced people that can go either either. Settlement is usually the preferred avenue to just end the inconvenience of it all.

the trial has a hard end date of March/2013.



Yes someone needs an easy way out or to find the least tarnishable action and shine factor.

[mfitz804]

the trial has a hard end date of March/2013.

That's not accurate. I am a practicing lawyer in NYC so I can explain.

The March 2013 date is for Plaintiffs to file their Note of Issue. Filing the Note of Issue essentially removes the case from the Court's discovery calendar places the matter on the Court's trial calendar.

Current backlog for a trial date is apporximately 12-15 months AFTER the Note of Issue is filed. So in theory, the trial could be as late as June 2014.

[OutToDry]

Explain the trial start date then? Thanks for the other explanation though.

[jclive]

Its really not a black and white world. I'd be surprised if this ends in anything but a closed settlement.

[OutToDry]

youre prob right....

'COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE' is a conference to discuss settlement rendered reasonable by the judge. (based on the nycivil law)

http://newyorkcivillitigation.blogspot.com...conference.html

https://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/nyc/c...#complianceproc
Compliance Conference Procedure

After the preliminary conference, if the case is not settled, a compliance conference will be held in Part 28. At the compliance conference, the judge may enter an order for whatever relief is deemed appropriate. If all discovery has been completed, the parties may be directed to file a Notice of Trial.

If the case is scheduled for compliance in Part 28 and the parties settle the action, a copy of the Compliance Stipulation and Order, form CIV-GP-132, may be filed with the Part 28 clerk on or before the return date. If form CIV-GP-132 is filed, no appearance will be necessary.

[Pokey]

I love the people saying "it's not all black and white!" When I was saying the same thing when it came to people understanding how CCP feel. That the mixed feelings and emotions they must have regarding Ed must be immense... Nope when it comes to that apparently it is black and white, but when it suits Ed..

[mfitz804]

Explain the trial start date then? Thanks for the other explanation though.

Not sure what you mean by trial start date. Where are you getting that from?

[mfitz804]

youre prob right....

'COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE' is a conference to discuss settlement rendered reasonable by the judge. (based on the nycivil law)

http://newyorkcivillitigation.blogspot.com...conference.html

If you were talking about me, I am definitely right. I unfortunately do this crap every day.

[OutToDry]

Look like another date in Jan......stay of execution?? Or time to figure out how to pay???

Appearance On For Appearance Justice / Comments Date Outcome Part
1/8/2013 Supreme Trial RAMOS, CHARLES E. 4:00 P.M.
STATUS CONFERENCE 53
10/22/2012 Supreme Trial Compliance Conference Held RAMOS, CHARLES E. 10:30 A.M.
COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE 53

[OutToDry]

heads up by fish

Mediation on 11/1

http://www.flipsidepa.com/live/ci_21827380...eaded-mediation

A lawsuit filed in May 2010 in New York by Live band members Patrick Dahlheimer, Chad Gracey and Chad Taylor will move to mediation Nov. 1 in New York City.

The suit alleges that former Live lead singer Ed Kowalczyk and the band's longtime manager, David Levin, violated terms of a contract. Kowalczyk's lawyer, John Rosenberg, confirmed the date of the mediation - an informal and confidential process often taken to resolve disputes without the need for lengthy and costly litigation.

According to the suit, Kowalczyk was to pay the other three band members a percentage of an advance and publishing income. The suit alleges Kowalczyk didn't pay the full amount due to each member.

Kowalczyk and Levin's answer to the 2010 lawsuit alleges that "motivated by jealousy and animus, plaintiffs commenced the present lawsuit on the eve of the release of Kowalczyk's solo album."

In July, Action Front Unlimited, a corporation that owns trademarks for the rock group Live, filed a federal lawsuit against Kowalczyk. In that suit, Action Front alleges that Kowalczyk is misleading fans by branding himself "Ed Kowalczyk of Live."

"We have exhausted every effort known to man to try and reach some sort of peaceful accord with Ed," Taylor said in July. In a text message, he added "the legal drama ... pales in comparison to the personal nature and disappointment of losing a childhood friend."

The members of Live grew up together in York and graduated from William Penn Senior High School before going on to make multiplatinum albums and tour the globe in the 1990s. By 2009, the members had parted ways. Dahlheimer, Gracey and Taylor pursued other musical projects and recently began performing as Live again.

Kowalczyk pursued a solo career. He is slated to bring his "I Alone Acoustic Tour" to York County for a Nov. 9 show at Penn State York's Pullo Family Performing Arts Center. Kowalczyk is billed as a "founding member and former lead singer of Live."

"As to the details of the legal proceedings, for now I will only say that both suits are baseless and totally without merit," Kowalczyk wrote via email in August.

Erin McCracken

FlipSide staff

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Oct 22 2012, 9:18 pm

[OutToDry]

interesting, she wrote this article before they even got out of the courtroom....sounds fishy

official briefing states:

Last Appearance:
Appearance Date: 10/22/2012
Appearance Time:
On For: Supreme Trial
Appearance Outcome: Compliance Conference Held
Justice: RAMOS, CHARLES E.
Part: COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE 53
Comments: 10:30 A.M.


Future Appearances:
Appearance Date: 01/08/2013
Appearance Time:
On For: Supreme Trial
Appearance Outcome:
Justice: RAMOS, CHARLES E.
Part: STATUS CONFERENCE 53
Comments: 4:00 P.M.


This post has been edited by OutToDry: Oct 22 2012, 9:33 pm

[mfitz804]

All this means is that discovery hasn't been completed, and the Court has scheduled a further conference to check on the status of same. Again, happens in every case multiple times.

Mediation doesn't really mean anything, it'll just get everybody in a room (or at least their lawyers) to see if a settlement can be reached. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are a huge waste of time and money.

I guess we will know shortly which one.