Posted on 12/08/2014 10:40:29 PM PST by Swordmaker
Edited on 12/09/2014 12:12:17 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Whoa....WTF.
No plaintiff, no genesis, no discovery, no path to a verdict.
KuhRayZee
Liar!!!
You're welcome, Abby.
“trial without a plantiff... how is that possible...”
It’s a class action lawsuit...so there is a pool of plaintiffs in the class from which one or more lead plaintiffs may be qualified and selected.
I also usually copy such a post as well. SeattleIP would not allow copying or editing, attempting to do so locked the screen for up to 20 seconds or so, so I could not even copy or send it to my self. They had locked out screen copy as well, so that was out. Cutting and pasting was also not allowed. I was going to copy myself what I had written when they erased it when I was attempting to log-in to post it.
They had me "log-in" using my Facebook account, so they knew it was me, but that was apparently insufficient for them to allow me post. . . and when I went to create an account for posting, everything I had written in response to their article was gone when i returned to finish posting it. They already had everything they asked me for in their registration from my Facebook information. . . there was not a single thing different. . . just a typical Windows type hoop to jump through.
BAH! The bad programing does not make me ever want to post there again.
ARRRRGH! I feel your pain! Some sites are extremely frustrating!
Are you an attorney. or did you just stay in a Holiday Inn last night? Because a lot of law professors seem to disagree with you. This is not an opt in case, where plaintiffs chose to be plaintiffs to sue the defendant. It is a case where they had to take action to OPT OUT if they did not want to participate because they did not feel injured, or wanted to sue on their own.
At the moment, there is no specific plaintiff for the attorneys to represent, or to receive direction from, and in no other such case has this ever happened before. This is unknown country in the law. The judge is setting a new precedent here which she has no business doing. Her proper course on disqualifying the last plaintiff was to end it lacking a plaintiff. The defense is going to be a distinct disadvantage being handed all new plaintiffs. All of the preparation for this case was done using specific lead plaintiffs. . . not all those amorphous plaintiffs in the cloud out there, the ones making the specific complaints, the ones who were deposed about their grievous economic injuries, and who answered questions under oath in discovery about the emotional distress they suffered when their favorite songs they bought for a bargain from RealNetwork were missing from their iPods after that evil Apple deleted them. HOW, pray tell, do you re-create all of that in the midst of a trial in progress?
After all, it WAS just so convenient and coincidental that the previous plaintiffs were married to their attorneys. . . they could discuss the trial in bed every night. It makes one wonder if the attorneys did not attend that weekend seminar: "Class Actions Law, For Fun and ProfitKeep it in the Family"
It is a terrible precedent to set. Liberals are going to love it. A lawyer can sue on their own if this is allowed. Get a law degree, pick a defendant, and start suing.
You do know that none of that makes any sense at all, don't you? Something just does not sound right. Apple would certainly have assisted him in retrieving the data off of his iPod. . . I have read and seen of many times where they have done this. Hacking was also unnecessary. Merely syncing it back to a newly authorized iTunes would do it easily. I've done it for clients.
The only time I have seen Apple dig in their heels and refuse is when a person cannot prove their identity. Then they will NOT cooperate at all.
Sorry I can’t comment about what was the precise problem. The conversation was casual and never intended to be remembered in detail. We were talking about hard drive failures we had recently experienced, which is how the topic came up, and he expressed his frustration with Apple’s refusal to help him recover what he had paid for in the first place along with his own musical compositions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.