0
bbarnhouse

Verdict Skydive Arizona VS Quattrocchi et el

Recommended Posts

Quote

It was our old buddy Ryan-he stopped posting here a while back. Not sure why.



He still lurks though. He was spotted in court in Nashville on the 15th, along with Chuckie Owens, looking like they lost a huge bet at the racing track. :P
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It was our old buddy Ryan-he stopped posting here a while back. Not sure why.



He still lurks though. He was spotted in court in Nashville on the 15th, along with Chuckie Owens, looking like they lost a huge bet at the racing track. :P


Well...he may be a very good skydiver, but his writing skills are challenged (at least in this press release). Hiring an educated intern would have produced a better result. Apologies to Ryan. The press release shrieks "Valley Girl" in the way it's written (O m' gaaaaaawwwwwwwdddddd!):D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And what are they arguing? not paying the 6.6mil?

Matt



There are several issues of law that are mentioned in court documents.
The way I understand it, the gist of it is, that the jury decides issues of fact and the court decides issues of law.
There are some outstanding issues of law that needed to be decided upon.
The case then is closed after those issues are resolved.
Then after that appeals can be made.
That is about the depth of my understanding.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Update on this case:

Both parties submitted arguments and exhibits to argue to the court this week.

The Plaintiff (SDA) says:
"For the foregoing reasons, Skydive Arizona respectfully requests that the Court
exercise its discretion to increase the award of profits and/or damages in this case.
Under the totality of the circumstances, such an increased award is appropriate and
necessary to achieve the goals and mandates of the Ninth Circuit in cases like this
one. The Court should provide a remedy sufficient to serve the policy of deterrence,
and to make the Defendants’ violations of the Lanham Act unprofitable."

The Defendants say:
"For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter a
judgment not withstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, order a new trial, or order a new
trial on the issue of damages, or in the alternative, order a remittitur for acceptance by the
Plaintiff of $224,652."

A hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 3. The judge will decide the outstanding matters shortly after that hearing.

Most of you don't know this, but the jury did not know about the other lawsuits (GA v SR and SR v USPA) and domain name disputes that were in favor of SDA. These facts were not allowed to be presented to the jury because of the potential bias it might have created.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Most of you don't know this, but the jury did not know about the other lawsuits (GA v SR and SR v USPA) and domain name disputes that were in favor of SDA. These facts were not allowed to be presented to the jury because of the potential bias it might have created.



Does the judge get to "know" and consider this "knowledge" when deciding the award of damages?
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Most of you don't know this, but the jury did not know about the other lawsuits (GA v SR and SR v USPA) and domain name disputes that were in favor of SDA. These facts were not allowed to be presented to the jury because of the potential bias it might have created.



Does the judge get to "know" and consider this "knowledge" when deciding the award of damages?



These are standard post-trial motions, typical of those filed in many civil lawsuits. It is not unusual, in post-trial motions, for plaintiffs to request (among other things) an increase in the jury's damages award ("additur") and defendants to request (among other things) a reduction in the jury's damages award ("remittitur").

I'm presuming the judge probably does know about various facts outside the admitted trial evidence; but most of the time, trial judges decide post-trial motions (including those requesting additur or remittitur) based solely on evidence admitted at trial. (I won't get into the rarer exceptions.) Generally speaking, the "bar" is set pretty high to get post-trial additur or remittitur of a jury's damages award - occasionally it is granted; most of the time it is not.

In most US jurisdictions (I don't know Arizona procedure), the filing of post-trial motions is done as a matter of course by all parties because civil procedural rules require that step to be taken (usually by a fairly short deadline following the verdict) in order to preserve issues for possible appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Update on this case:

Both parties submitted arguments and exhibits to argue to the court this week.

The Plaintiff (SDA) says:
"For the foregoing reasons, Skydive Arizona respectfully requests that the Court
exercise its discretion to increase the award of profits and/or damages in this case.
Under the totality of the circumstances, such an increased award is appropriate and
necessary to achieve the goals and mandates of the Ninth Circuit in cases like this
one. The Court should provide a remedy sufficient to serve the policy of deterrence,
and to make the Defendants’ violations of the Lanham Act unprofitable."

The Defendants say:
"For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter a
judgment not withstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, order a new trial, or order a new
trial on the issue of damages, or in the alternative, order a remittitur for acceptance by the
Plaintiff of $224,652."

A hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 3. The judge will decide the outstanding matters shortly after that hearing.

Most of you don't know this, but the jury did not know about the other lawsuits (GA v SR and SR v USPA) and domain name disputes that were in favor of SDA. These facts were not allowed to be presented to the jury because of the potential bias it might have created.

.


It looks like a $224,652 admission of guilt and a plea to make it go away. But for that sum of money one has to wonder is the money drying up at SR? I am seeing where some of the TN staff is applying to work at other DZ's this year and not Waverly, wasn't this their 'new home', 'staying forever' blah blah blah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I hear ..............



Hey Billy, listen to me........
Yeah SR did not fair well yesterday.
When the defense attorney objects to his exhibits- exhibits produced by SR, being entered then you know there is a problem.

I'm still writing my account for my journal. I promised Blue Skies an article too.

We still have to wait for the judge to rule.

But overall, SDA had a very good day in court and SR was, well, so dysfunctional it was comical.

I was on the stand for about an hour.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I hear ..............



Hey Billy, listen to me........
Yeah SR did not fair well yesterday.
When the defense attorney objects to his exhibits- exhibits produced by SR, being entered then you know there is a problem.

I'm still writing my account for my journal. I promised Blue Skies an article too.

We still have to wait for the judge to rule.

But overall, SDA had a very good day in court and SR was, well, so dysfunctional it was comical.

I was on the stand for about an hour.

.


They must have cheap lawyers right out of school or something. :ph34r:
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I hear ..............



Hey Billy, listen to me........
Yeah SR did not fair well yesterday.
When the defense attorney objects to his exhibits- exhibits produced by SR, being entered then you know there is a problem.

I'm still writing my account for my journal. I promised Blue Skies an article too.

We still have to wait for the judge to rule.

But overall, SDA had a very good day in court and SR was, well, so dysfunctional it was comical.

I was on the stand for about an hour.

.


They must have cheap lawyers right out of school or something. :ph34r:


Yep, probably the same one they had in Nashville.B|
Refuse to Lose!!!
Failure is NOT an option!
1800skyrideripoff.com
Nashvilleskydiving.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0