Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (10029)	8/27/2007 4:06:37 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 12465

Re: 8/27/07 - [EAG] Eagle v Petrofsy et al: Restraining order stayed By: al-petrofsky 27 Aug 2007, 02:36 PM EDT Msg. 58806 of 58806 (This msg. is a reply to 58749 by al-petrofsky.) Jump to msg. # Restraining order stayed On July 12, 2007, California Judge Kevin J. Murphy issued a restraining order that prohibited Eagle Broadband from disposing of any of its accounts receivable until it posted a bond of at least $104,401.96. See the parent of this message for details. I now have a copy of an order entered on August 1, in which Judge Murphy stayed his restraining order indefinitely. He did this at the joint request of Eagle and Thomas Mould, and he empowered Mould to unilaterally cause the stay to be lifted at any time by filing a notice with the court. See the "STIPULATION AND ORDER RE ORDER OF JULY 12, 2007": eagle.petrofsky.org Eagle and Mould also informed the court that they had "reached an agreement to resolve collection issues related to the August 9, 2006 Attorneys' Fee Award" and that they had entered into "a confidential payment agreement". Notably, they did not state that Eagle had actually made any payment yet, nor did they state when the agreement calls for payments to begin. See the "STIPULATION AND ORDER RE ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT", also entered on August 1, 2007: eagle.petrofsky.org Meanwhile, the California Court of Appeal scheduled oral arguments for September 20 on Eagle's two appeals relating to Mould. In those appeals, Eagle seeks to reduce the amount of the $66,451.68 judgment that Mould obtained in August 2006, or to eliminate that judgment entirely and reopen Eagle's case against Mould for Defamation and Unfair Competition. To the best of my knowledge, here's the basic status, with respect to each defendant, of Eagle Broadband v. Does 1 through 25, Case No. 1-05-cv-050179, California Superior Court, Santa Clara County (the case began on October 5, 2005): Doe 1 a/k/a Advanced_headlines: has not been identified, nor made any appearance. The next hearing date regarding the status of the unidentified defendants (Doe 1 and Does 6 through 25) is October 11, 2007. Doe 2 a/k/a Team_3339 a/k/a Team3339 a/k/a Maestro3339 a/k/a I3339team a/k/a David John Mowers: He and his original attorney (Gregory Broiles) were jointly ordered in June 2006 to pay $4,000 to Eagle, as sanctions for failing to respond to Eagle's discovery requests. In April 2007, at Eagle's request, its complaint was dismissed as to Mowers, and Mowers withdrew his anti-SLAPP motion for attorney fees. (They presumably made these mutual withdrawals pursuant to some non-public settlement agreement.) Doe 3 a/k/a Upanddown100 a/k/a Daniel Berger: In October 2006, at Eagle's request, its complaint was dismissed as to Berger, and Berger withdrew his anti-SLAPP motion for attorney fees. (They presumably made these mutual withdrawals pursuant to some non-public settlement agreement.) Doe 4 a/k/a Richwill21 a/k/a Richard Williams: His anti-SLAPP motion to strike Eagle's complaint was denied in March 2006. Eagle's case against him is stayed pending his appeal of that order. His appeal is scheduled to be heard on September 20, 2007 (along with the Mould-related appeals). Doe 5 a/k/a Benderanddundat a/k/a Thomas Mould: The complaint as to him was stricken in March 2006, and Eagle was ordered in August 2006 to pay him $66,451.68 for his attorney fees and costs. Eagle appealed both orders, and both appeals are scheduled to be heard on September 20, 2007. Doe 6 a/k/a Phil_phd2003: same status as Doe 1. Doe 7 a/k/a Bubba2o: same status as Doe 1. Does 8 through 25: Eagle has yet to say anything about any of these alleged people, other than that they are "responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged" (Complaint, para. 12). (See also the Doe 1 status.) For more information, see: eagle.petrofsky.org ragingbull.quote.com