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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (21918)	4/5/1999 1:38:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 26163

Remember that California case? Spidey's offered us several different accounts of its current status. What we do know is that it was brought by First Concorde against AZNT; at the time of the 2 October hearing there'd been no action in it at all. Now it resurfaces briefly. We're not sure what really happened, but at least we don't seem to be as confused as Josh Landish is: 16 BY MR. LEFEBVRE: 17 Q. Now this litigation was commenced in the summer of 1998; 18 is that correct? In August or September? I'll represent to 19 you that it -- 20 A. Yeah. 21 Q. Now since that time we've been before his Honor on two 22 separate applications; is that -- for a preliminary injunction 23 -- is that correct? 24 A. Correct. This is number 3. 25 Q. In -- well, October 2nd the court entered an order and ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA (702) 382-8778 SYLVER - CROSS 73 1 we're back again with this session; is that correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And during that period of time you have taken absolutely 4 no steps, isn't it true, to litigate the issue of this 5 consideration for this million dollars worth of stock? 6 A. Have to ask my attorney. I don't understand. 7 Q. Okay. To your knowledge -- 8 MR. LANDISH: Your Honor, we have a default. What 9 more do we have to do? 10 MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, there are claims pending against 11 First Concorde which go to that same issue of the million 12 dollars. 13 THE COURT: Well, that was this California Superior 14 Court case? 15 MR. LANDISH: The California Superior Court case Mr. 16 Judd refers to was an action by Greg Typher (phonetic) to 17 obtain stock from Wanda Kricfalusi. 18 MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't believe that's correct, your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Well, let's stay away from it. I'm sorry 21 I asked the question. But I know I've got a lawsuit in 22 California someplace and I don't know what relationship it 23 has. 24 MR. LANDISH: What? There's not a Typher-Kricfalusi 25 lawsuit in California? ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA (702) 382-8778 SYLVER - CROSS 74 1 MR. COOPER: I think the Court is talking about an 2 action that First Concorde commenced against Amazon in 3 California state court that is pending now. 4 MR. LANDISH: Okay. 5 MR. MONTAL: And, your Honor, in that case they have 6 only touched on the jurisdictional issues. They have not 7 gotten into any of the substantive claims at all. 8 THE COURT: I see. 9 MR. LANDISH: I understand that to be dismissed from 10 Robert Qualey. 11 BY MR. LEFEBVRE: 12 Q. In this case pending before his Honor there has not been 13 one deposition taken, has there? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. You don't know? 16 A. Well, the attorney -- you'd have to ask the attorney. 17 Q. You've never been notified of any deposition being taken; 18 is that correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And you've never seen any interrogatories sent? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. To whom? 23 A. The place in California when Robert got the case 24 dismissed. 25 Q. In this litigation before this judge in this courthouse? ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA (702) 382-8778 SYLVER CROSS 75 1 A. No. 2 Q. There have been no interrogatories have there? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And no other litigation activity except for -- 5 A. Interrogatory -- excuse me, your Honor -- is a list of 6 questions that has to be answered? 7 MR. LANDISH: Your Honor, if I may, this is an 8 application, a motion for preliminary injunction. Discovery 9 is not proper and I do not understand this line of 10 questioning. 11 MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm talking about the issue of damages 12 which goes to whether a complete and adequate relief could be 13 had other than in the preliminary injunction application and 14 extraordinary relief. 15 THE COURT: I don't have a problem with the inquiry. 16 But I suppose very quickly it would be resolved by getting the 17 stipulation that indeed there have been no depositions taken 18 and no interrogatories and I suppose you'd stipulate to that. 19 MR. LANDISH: I would so stipulate, your Honor. 20 Again this is a motion for preliminary injunction. 21 THE COURT: Well, I understand. 22 MR. LANDISH: And we have not moved under rule 65 to 23 merge it with the permanent for just those reasons. 24 THE COURT: Let's move on. So was the California case dismissed, or not? Qualey and Landish are co-counsel in the Mann case; you'd think they'd be able to get this straight.