Framework for an Agreement Has Been Reached

The aforementioned substantive settlement discussions appear to be bearing fruit. Although it seems a bit more time is needed to work out the details, in a filing yesterday the plaintiff's in the Bardfield case are now saying that "framework for an agreement has been reached:"

It looks like they are now hopeful for a final settlement within 30 days.

Addendum 12/4/10: As I suspected, there are "substantive settlement discussions" occuring right now in the DeForest case as well. This similar motion to keep the court-appointed mediator at bay a bit longer was filed last week:

Again, this is a 30 day time extension. So, if these discussions work out, we should hear of a settlement agreement around about Christmas or New Years, I guess.

Addendum 12/23/10: Another 30 day extension in the Bardfield case, to January 21, 2011. A settlement is taking a bit longer than expected to hash out, it seems, due to "bankruptcy and corporate issues":

Addendum 1/15/11: Another agreed motion for more time, this one in the DeForest case.

Interestingly, this one actually spells out a date that they think the settlement documents will be filed with the court: January 21, 2011. And "concurrent with the related case" which refers to the Bardfield case; so it looks like this whole saga could be all wrapped up next Friday:

Addendum 1/21/11: Nope, not over yet, folks!

Instead of settlements, today we see yet another joint request for more time, this one in the Bardfield case. They're seeking a new deadline of February 21, 2011, which has the same end date as an extension (not shown, but recently approved) in the DeForest case:

Substantive Settlement Discussions

This was just filed in the Bardfield case; it's a request by both parties for the mediation deadlines (see the Joint Scheduling Report for info on those) to be extended, so that "substantive settlement discussions" can continue:


As you can see, both parties are hopeful in producing a settlement within 21 days ... thereby avoiding the spectacle of Johnny Chisholm acting as his own attorney in a Federal courtroom before an actual jury (said trial was tentatively scheduled for January 2011).

Meanwhile, in the DeForest case a mediator was just appointed; but no indication whether substantive settlement discussions are going on there or not (my hunch would be yes).

Perhaps the end is near, for both cases? We'll have to wait and see...

Joint Scheduling Report

The Joint Scheduling Report due in the Bardfield case (which I mentioned here a couple weeks ago) has been filed:




There's a few new and interesting developments here, perhaps the most relevant being the proposed scheduling deadlines for the case:

Deadline to amend pleadings/add other parties to the lawsuit: September 24, 2010
Deadline for discovery to be completed by: October 15, 2010
Deadline to file dispositive motions: November 15, 2010

Proposed trial date: On or about the month of January 2011.

Typically, once a Joint Scheduling Report like this is approved and the private discovery period begins, the filings in a case become pretty quiet. So, if you see this blog become inactive for a spell, that's completely normal...it means there's nothing going on that we can see. An exception would be if there were discovery disputes; in that case we'd begin to see motions related to discovery issues (as happened in the DeForest case, for example).

So, just a heads up, we may be in for an extended quiet period here on The Forest Moon of Endor. Or not. We shall see...

Addendum 7/26/10: The joint scheduling report above has pretty much been made official by an Order:




Addendum 7/29/10: And the same procedure was just completed in the DeForest case:






So, the new schedule for the rest of the DeForest case looks like:

Deadline to add parties/amend pleadings: September 15, 2010
Discovery completed by: November 15, 2010
Dispositive motions filed by: December 15, 2010
Proposed trial date: May 2011

"No more Mr. Nice Guy!" Noize Magazine Takes JustCircuit To Court

Well this is interesting. I stumbled across this case summary while doing some unrelated research; it looks like it was filed a few weeks ago, on May 21, 2010:


Victor M. Mauro, Jr. is the registered agent and one of two owners listed for JustCircuit, LLC, so I'd say it's a good guess the case concerns some sort of new malfeasance JustCircuit managed to embroil itself in. Although what that would be, and whether it was in any way related to the Chisholm/GayDays scandal, I don't know at this point. All the info I can access online is this very brief summary of the case, which has nothing more than the parties, the courthouse, and the date and time of the hearing.

I'll try to get more information on this from sources close to parties, and will post updates as they become available...

Addendum 6/25/10: I managed to pull the case file:



As you can see, this is a "BREACH OF CONTRACT" lawsuit, with said breach having allegedly occurred between February 6 and February 13, 2010. Noize Magazine is claiming damages in the amount of $3,000, which puts well within the jurisdictional limit of the California small claims court (which is $7,500, IIRC).

The contract that was allegedly breached was attached, and can be viewed here. It seems to be a settlement agreement from a previous legal dispute concerning a pretty blatant act of cybersquatting and trademark violation committed by JustCircuit back in 2008.

Now, if I'm reading this settlement document correctly...it would appear that sometime prior to October of 2008 JustCircuit registered and activated an Internet domain which it had absolutely no right to use, "www.circuitnoizeonline.com," with the intent, I would assume, to illegally steer traffic intended for Noize to JustCircuit. An exhibit attached to the end of the contract that contains traffic statistics of JustCircuit during certain key months seems to bolster this assumption:



And it looks like JustCircuit got caught red handed doing this...and was forced to cave. This settlement required that JustCircuit fork over the cybersquatted domain, and both parties agreed not to infringe on each others trademarks in the future (in particular, Noize agreed to leave parked a domain "www.justcircuitnoize.com" which it had registered but never activated).

So anyways, that's the contract involved in this breach of contract. What's not clear yet is what the actual "breach" is. All I can tell from the filing above is that this alleged breach occurred between February 6 and 13 of this year. I'll keep digging, and see if I can't find out a bit more...

Update 8/24/10: I was able to verify the meaning of those JustCircuit-provided traffic statistics printed above: The 2nd number on each line is the total number of "hits" JustCircuit got in that particular month; for example, in January of 2008 their entire site got a total of 175 hits.

The 3rd number refers to bandwidth (in mb?), which as you can see, was 251187 in Jan of '08.

The 4th number is total number of unique visitors (as opposed to hits) for that month; thus in Jan '08 a grand total of 72 people visited the JustCircuit website, according to their very own internal traffic statistics.

And the 5th number is interesting, that's actually a subset of the 4th number; it's the total number of unique visitors who came to JustCircuit through the Noize-mimicking domains illegally cybersquatted by JustCircuit. For example, of the 72 people who visited JustCircuit in the month of January 2008, 21 of those really meant to go to Noize, but were tricked by the deceptive chicanery of JustCircuit owners Shane Rogers and Victor Mauro.

I'll try to keep you all updated on this as more information becomes available...

Notice of Intention

The two civil case vs. Johnny Chisholm relentlessly continue forward. Late last week the magistrate in the DeForest case, noting the current procedural status of the litigation, asked how the plaintiff intended to proceed from this point on:



And DeForest, in turn, replied with this Notice of Intention:




Clearly, despite all the delays, Ray DeForest is not giving up, neither as to the discovery documents he wants, nor to the case as a whole.

And there's one paragraph worthy of special notice here, I think (hyperlinks mine):

"Plaintiff had been expending money on discovery that was being ignored so he sought default as suggested by this Court. Ultimately, Defendant Chisholm claimed poverty but provided no excuse for his non-compliance. This Court ruled judgment was too harsh a penalty because Chisholm was unrepresented. Recently, Defendants’ previous counsel, who filed multiple motions to withdraw and acknowledged discovery failures, has shockingly sent letters to media outlets threatening actions on behalf of his client Mr. Chisholm. This brazen approach may further show a game by Defendant Chisholm of hide and seek. He begged the Court for mercy because he had no counsel while paying counsel to threaten others. All of this shows Defendants’ games which require more discovery and time due to their refusals to comply."

The Bardfield case continues as well. This Order sets out a deadline for the parties to confer, so that discovery can finally begin (probably in July):



The deadline for the parties to meet and confer is June 28, with a joint report due 10 days after.