T
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
T
Tri-State Media
Guest
I'm surprised nobody picked up on this sooner...
Toddbarkley said:
None of the items would open for me.
What are the damages being sought by AudioVision and who is AudioVision?
http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?sec=history&casenumber=A1003260 is the working link.
T
Tri-State Media
Guest
This appears to be a lawsuit against the licensee of WDJO-AM 1480 over breach of contract of some sort... Unfortunately, the documents are sealed and this is why no one can access them.
microbob said:
Yes, i had some gaps in the link.
Alchemy is acting "in pro per"? (or in propria persona) Acting as their own attorney.
The deposit doesn't belie the amount of damages, does it?
We don't do that up here.
U
Uncas
Guest
That sounds like the car guy to me. Didn't he get fired from CC for smoking in studio?
This does not always mean much but the lawyer involved is not what I would call "a hitter". Very small practice, just a few miles from my home in the burbs.
The clerk almost always seals the documents on the website even though anyone could see them if they went to the courthouse.
I think this is a result from a couple years ago when there was a flap about the site having social security numbers and other sensitive information. The response was to block most documents. I also think some of the documents are pretty long and they just don't want to mess with them.
This does not always mean much but the lawyer involved is not what I would call "a hitter". Very small practice, just a few miles from my home in the burbs.
The clerk almost always seals the documents on the website even though anyone could see them if they went to the courthouse.
I think this is a result from a couple years ago when there was a flap about the site having social security numbers and other sensitive information. The response was to block most documents. I also think some of the documents are pretty long and they just don't want to mess with them.
Complaint:
http://www.courtclerk.org/EKASH/radB17180614132254.pdf
Response to motion for more definitive statement:
http://www.courtclerk.org/EKASH/radE97EC0614132430.pdf
Motion to dismiss:
http://www.courtclerk.org/EKASH/rad5FD590614131634.pdf
http://www.courtclerk.org/EKASH/radB17180614132254.pdf
Response to motion for more definitive statement:
http://www.courtclerk.org/EKASH/radE97EC0614132430.pdf
Motion to dismiss:
http://www.courtclerk.org/EKASH/rad5FD590614131634.pdf
U
Uncas
Guest
Good post. Thanks.
Don't see how a 12(b)(6) motion is going to fly.
Most judges are not big fans of old fashioned technical pleading.
Reads like a pre 1970 defense.
Guess we will see.
Don't see how a 12(b)(6) motion is going to fly.
Most judges are not big fans of old fashioned technical pleading.
Reads like a pre 1970 defense.
Guess we will see.
M
medman
Guest
Took a few minutes to review the docs with another attorney.
A few observations:
What a poorly outlined complaint with insufficient support.
Certainly the plaintiff has more detail to counter the claims of the defense. I sure hope so.
According to the docs, this was a VERBAL contract(gads) and included is evidence of the defense making payments with a different amount than the billing. Each subsequent billing doesn't included a "previously brought forward" balance. Implication is that the defense accepted the partial on more than one occasion as payment in full.
There seems to be some confusion between an individual and a corporation as the identity of the plaintiff. Also, there seems to be another "third party" performing in lieu of the plaintiff. They aren't named.
We guess it's got a 50/50 on dismissal, this case is a mess. I'd tell them to go out in the hall and figure out a reasonable amount or I'd be tempted to throw it out. Based on the lack of proof here I doubt any collection agency would take this debt, hence the need to go right to court for any chance of recovery.
Even if it proceeds I wouldn't want to count on any more than a small percentage as settlement based on these kinds of records. That would be a smart move, otherwise the counsel are the only ones to profit by dragging it out.
Lesson to everyone - don't do verbal contracts for this sort of thing. And always keep good records of your work...and finally, don't accept payments less than your invoice without issuing an accurate statement of account, otherwise the money is as good as lost.
A few observations:
What a poorly outlined complaint with insufficient support.
Certainly the plaintiff has more detail to counter the claims of the defense. I sure hope so.
According to the docs, this was a VERBAL contract(gads) and included is evidence of the defense making payments with a different amount than the billing. Each subsequent billing doesn't included a "previously brought forward" balance. Implication is that the defense accepted the partial on more than one occasion as payment in full.
There seems to be some confusion between an individual and a corporation as the identity of the plaintiff. Also, there seems to be another "third party" performing in lieu of the plaintiff. They aren't named.
We guess it's got a 50/50 on dismissal, this case is a mess. I'd tell them to go out in the hall and figure out a reasonable amount or I'd be tempted to throw it out. Based on the lack of proof here I doubt any collection agency would take this debt, hence the need to go right to court for any chance of recovery.
Even if it proceeds I wouldn't want to count on any more than a small percentage as settlement based on these kinds of records. That would be a smart move, otherwise the counsel are the only ones to profit by dragging it out.
Lesson to everyone - don't do verbal contracts for this sort of thing. And always keep good records of your work...and finally, don't accept payments less than your invoice without issuing an accurate statement of account, otherwise the money is as good as lost.
Well, we can look to the basics of contract law to give us a little clarity.
Offer, acceptance, cash.
Yes, the offer was verbal but was accepted and payment rendered. If there was no agreement on the part of the Defendant, then they shouldn't have forked over any cash. The action of paying Steve by the Defendant is more than Tacit Admission. They are actively paying on the agreement and it proves that they came to a "meeting of the minds".
Now, if, anywhere in this (and i'll admit i have not read all three docs.) they paid the full monthly amount, then this proves agreement to the that specific fee.
I don't know how the Ohio court system works. This could get really interesting if it went to a jury. Up here, it hits mediation. If the issue remains unresolved, it goes to trial.
I hope that they can work this out. Both entities are long timers. Well known and established in the Cincinnati market.
Offer, acceptance, cash.
Yes, the offer was verbal but was accepted and payment rendered. If there was no agreement on the part of the Defendant, then they shouldn't have forked over any cash. The action of paying Steve by the Defendant is more than Tacit Admission. They are actively paying on the agreement and it proves that they came to a "meeting of the minds".
Now, if, anywhere in this (and i'll admit i have not read all three docs.) they paid the full monthly amount, then this proves agreement to the that specific fee.
I don't know how the Ohio court system works. This could get really interesting if it went to a jury. Up here, it hits mediation. If the issue remains unresolved, it goes to trial.
I hope that they can work this out. Both entities are long timers. Well known and established in the Cincinnati market.
microbob said:It's sad Autoline is off the air again. The show would be a good fit for 1160 on a Saturday morning or afternoon.
Well. that offer was made and the producer treated the team at RT like they had the plague.
Kind of gave everyone the feeling that the other folks said some really bad things to keep Autoline away from 1160.
U
Uncas
Guest
Generally, verbal contracts are as valid as written. It is a proof issue, not a validity issue.
Back in the old days, before the modern Rules of Civil Procedure, courts loved to toss out lawsuits based upon the technicalities of pleading. It was called code pleading. It was eventually seen as too much of a lawyering game that often did not allow people to have their day in court even with a meritorious claim.
That went away about 1970 in Ohio and just about everywhere else including the Feds.
So, we have a number of generations where wide latitude is given for let's call it less than good pleading, the exception being where a claim is patently on its face without merit.
Of course, I am not there but most every judge is going to allow the plaintiff to fix this up or even let it go further because there is clearly some issues that could be tried even though in dispute.
You just don't see a lot of 12(b) (6) motions granted unless the plaintiff is totally uncooperative.
You do see Rule 56 motions for summary judgment granted but that is a different although somewhat similarly sounding motion.
Judges like to "force" settlements, especially small stuff. Often they will refer it to ADR people in mediation and the bar association even has volunteers who sit as arbitrators for such cases. It is non binding but does give the parties and idea how other pros see the evidence presented and it encourages settlements when reality hits you in the face.
Back in the old days, before the modern Rules of Civil Procedure, courts loved to toss out lawsuits based upon the technicalities of pleading. It was called code pleading. It was eventually seen as too much of a lawyering game that often did not allow people to have their day in court even with a meritorious claim.
That went away about 1970 in Ohio and just about everywhere else including the Feds.
So, we have a number of generations where wide latitude is given for let's call it less than good pleading, the exception being where a claim is patently on its face without merit.
Of course, I am not there but most every judge is going to allow the plaintiff to fix this up or even let it go further because there is clearly some issues that could be tried even though in dispute.
You just don't see a lot of 12(b) (6) motions granted unless the plaintiff is totally uncooperative.
You do see Rule 56 motions for summary judgment granted but that is a different although somewhat similarly sounding motion.
Judges like to "force" settlements, especially small stuff. Often they will refer it to ADR people in mediation and the bar association even has volunteers who sit as arbitrators for such cases. It is non binding but does give the parties and idea how other pros see the evidence presented and it encourages settlements when reality hits you in the face.
Good education. Thanks.Uncas said:Generally, verbal contracts are as valid as written. It is a proof issue, not a validity issue.
Back in the old days, before the modern Rules of Civil Procedure, courts loved to toss out lawsuits based upon the technicalities of pleading. It was called code pleading. It was eventually seen as too much of a lawyering game that often did not allow people to have their day in court even with a meritorious claim.
That went away about 1970 in Ohio and just about everywhere else including the Feds.
So, we have a number of generations where wide latitude is given for let's call it less than good pleading, the exception being where a claim is patently on its face without merit.
Of course, I am not there but most every judge is going to allow the plaintiff to fix this up or even let it go further because there is clearly some issues that could be tried even though in dispute.
You just don't see a lot of 12(b) (6) motions granted unless the plaintiff is totally uncooperative.
You do see Rule 56 motions for summary judgment granted but that is a different although somewhat similarly sounding motion.
Judges like to "force" settlements, especially small stuff. Often they will refer it to ADR people in mediation and the bar association even has volunteers who sit as arbitrators for such cases. It is non binding but does give the parties and idea how other pros see the evidence presented and it encourages settlements when reality hits you in the face.
Our mediation panel always has 2 lawyers and a business person. They generally always come up with a deal that spreads the pain.
A little Ouch for both sides. If you don't sign off and the other side does, goes trial and, say the party that agreed to the deal wins, you get stuck with whatever the award is PLUS all of the legal expense.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.