Janice, re. <<But do they seriously mean to prosecute this suit?>>
One might ask whether the intent of the announcement was to scare online posters to silence them. If that was the goal, then prosecuting the suit might be an unnecessary expense for them.
<<why are they bringing it in Florida, when the company's incorporated in Nevada and based in Rancho Cucamonga, CA? So first, let's wrangle endlessly over a change of venue. California's got a great anti-SLAPP law.>>
I dunno. Maybe they think that lawyers from Boca Raton must be good, because there are so many fine publicly-traded companies that are headquartered there ;-)
According to the anti-SLAPP site that I posted, Florida had an anti-SLAPP law pending a year ago. The text of the proposed law appears on their site. No word on whether it has been adopted, though.
<<Second, we should begin to think RIGHT NOW about what we want from the discovery process.>>
Yes, but more importantly ...
... I think that the company and the present and past officers and directors should think right now about what they don't want you to see in the discovery process.
I wonder whether they might not have a great deal more to lose, in the discovery process, than they could possibly gain by prosecuting the suit.
<<Well, it's getting a little old.>>
I'm very sorry to see the company drag you into this, Janice. Like many people, I have a great deal of respect for you, and I want to see something good happen for you, not something unpleasant. |
