|[News] Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit||ANN.lu|
|Posted on 25-Sep-2003 20:26 GMT by Rich Woods||147 comments|
Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit
Although I have known about this action since last weekend I have refrained from posting this info until I had the court documentation available. It has just become available today.|
23 MOTION Requesting Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant by Amiga Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
24 DECLARATION of DIANA S. SHUKIS in Support of 23 MOTION RequestingLeave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant, filed by Defendant Amiga Inc. re (Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Amiga Inc re 23 MOTION for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, 24 Declaration of Diana S. Shukis. (Temp5, ) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
Amiga's attorney's have filed a motion before the Federal Court to withdraw as Attorneys for Amiga - effectively leaving them with no counsel.
This means that they could default on their action(s) and counter-claims.
The documents are available at:
Certificate of Service To Withdraw
Withdrawal of Counsel 1
Withdrawal of counsel 2
|List of all comments to this article|
|Amiga's Attorneys File motion to Withdraw as Their Attorneys in the Thendic-Amiga Lawsuit : Comment 92 of 147||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 26-Sep-2003 02:52 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 87 (Rich Woods):|
Rich Woods quoted a bunch of the federal rules of conduct...
If you're keeping score, know when the discovery cutoff is or was set?
The Federal code probably applies here more than the state, I wasn't thinking too hard. Having observed a malpractice case once (I was along to haul some exhibits for the counsel for the claimant), which is what it takes to test these principles in absence of gross misconduct (something that'd make the judge actively stand up and take action), those end up in front of bored juries, and the arguments can get pretty vague or just plain specious anyway. (Claimant reads off the WA code of conduct, say, defense objects that the Federal rules are slightly different, bench carries it... but the jury doesn't exactly forget what was babbled at them or keep great track of what does/doesn't apply.)
Since, given the other analysis, I doubt it'll come to malpractice, either AInc. takes the delay, gets another attorney, and buys another month or two to get product out the door (and revenue/investment for support)... Or they don't reserve counsel, get a default judgement, and immediately file bankruptcy if they can find a lawyer who'll take pay in Mediaterminals.
> Besides Amiga's "insolvency", billyboy's constraints on the court
> makes the attorneys look bad - a reason for withdrawal could be
> billyboy's flaunting of court rules and procedures.
Somewhat agreed, but I bet the bench has seen far worse, so I'd be surprised if he does more than curl his lip. Funny how we have to wait for some 'judgement' to pretend we can predict the judgement.
(Oh, wait, isn't that how it's supposed to work?) ;)
|List of all comments to this article (continued)||
- User Menu
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past,
present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.