^(Because Samsung opted to largely repeat its earlier cross-motion, Samsung’s opposition brief does not engage meaningfully with Netlist’s arguments or evidence in support of summary judgment. Samsung does not contest that (1) the JDLA was an enforceable contract, (2) Netlist need not prove damages in order to obtain partial summary judgment, and (3) Netlist properly followed the JDLA’s termination provisions. See Br. §§ IV(A), (D) (F). And as to the remaining elements of Netlist’sclaim—Netlist’s performance, Samsung’s breach, and the materiality thereof—none of the points raised for the first time in Samsung’s opposition brief provide any basis to deny Netlist’s motion.)
Unable to confront the JDLA’s straightforward language, Samsung’s opposition leapfrogs past the contract fully executed by both parties and proceeds straight to extrinsic evidence, including preliminary and superseded negotiation history. According to Samsung, “the only way to interpret the supply provision in Section 6.2 is to look at the MOU.” Opp. 8; see also id. (referring to negotiation history as “the only relevant data points for interpreting Section 6.2.”). No legal authority is cited for that remarkable assertion because none exists. As New York’s highest court has explained, “extrinsic and parol evidence is not admissible to create ambiguity” and “may not be considered” in the interpretation of a contract that “is complete and clear and unambiguous upon its face.” S. Road Assocs., LLC v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 272, 278 (2005). Having failed to identify any ambiguity in Section 6.2, Samsung’s argument fails as a matter of law.2
Link Below
Some of Samsung’s arguments flatly contradict the JDLA. Some improperly rely on flagrantly mischaracterized parol evidence while ignoring inconvenient facts that put the lie to Samsung’s fictions. Some contradict positions Samsung took last month when moving for judgment on the pleadings. And some improperly seek to resuscitate arguments this Court resolved when denying that same motion. All told, the Motion is just Samsung’s latest attempt to rewrite history and the parties’ contract.
Netlist opposition to Samsungs Motion for Summary Judgement or Partial Summary Judgement
As a reminder, the plaintiff in that case, Alexis Nunez, was abused by her step-grandfather, Maximo Reyes, who have been disfellowshipped for one year for abusing his children. She sued the organization for failure to report the known abuse to police and was awarded $35 million by a jury while another plaintiff (her aunt) lost her case. The Supreme Court of Montana reversed the award, finding that congregation and Bethel elders were exempt from duty to report.
The plaintiff then asked the district court to allow her to sue the org again under another legal theory - common law negligence - which has been voluntarily abandoned by her counsel before the trial. The district court granted the motion; Watchtower appealed.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Montana denied the appeal. The Court unanimously found the res judicata rule doesn't apply here; by four votes to three, it also found the district court didn't abused its discretion since a good cause existed for not prosecuting the common law negligence theory in the first trial. The majority's reasoning on this key issue is contained in a single (¶23) paragraph of the 25 paragraph opinion.
Three justices dissented, stating that "the factual and legal rationales asserted by the District Court and this Court for not holding Nunez to her purely tactical decision to abandon her alternative common law negligence claim are unsound and indefensible under the particular circumstances of this case." In concluding his dissent, Justice Sandefur wrote:
>Empathy is not a legal basis upon which to disregard the governing Rules of Civil Procedure, universally adopted for the purpose of ensuring fair and equal treatment and protection to all civil litigants, plaintiffs and defendants alike. While understandable, the Court’s empathy-driven, result-oriented holding today is not only erroneous and indefensible under the circumstances of this case, but further establishes terrible precedent that will surely foster similar unfair civil trial practice until we are inevitably forced to reverse or limit it as anomalous in the future under a less emotionally-gripping fact pattern. This is a classic case of the old adage that bad facts make bad law.
It is for the district court now to deal with the case.
Judgment: https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=343605
Case documents: [https://courts.mt.gov/Portals/189/orders/caseInfo.html?id=OP
... keep reading on reddit ➡We are being sued by NCT for an outstanding loan amount from student loans that were issued in 2007-2009.
This was during the "lend to anyone" period of time and we should have in no way been approved for the amounts we sought... that's besides the point.
We received a notice on the mail from the court after we were served with the suit and it stated that we needed to respond to the suit if we wanted to contest by a specific date (around 30 days).
14 days later, 2 full weeks shy of the deadline. We received a judgment by mail that the court had awarded a default judgement to NCT in the full amount.
Now they are pursuing an ability to pay hearing where they want to garnish the wages of my co-signer and potentially place leans on their property.
Is this legal? Is this common to issue a judgement so prematurely? Is this contestable with an appeal?
EDIT: I've been getting downvoted on both my post and all of my comments... So I feel it necessary to share some pertinent info that I had to offer in a reply below... My attorney has us on a retainer of $400 a month to be available for our case. We have now had him on retainer for 4 years and 2 months. That is precisely $20,000 of retainer fees.
In that time. He has responded to a handful of correspondence with the student loan servicing company, as well as a few court notices. He has issued 3 cease and desist notices to stop 2-3 calls per day which went on for a year to myself, my co-signer, our references, and various random family members. The last one was very much appreciated. We have probably had around 8 15-20 minute consultations with him to cover status and strategy.
All of this for $20,000... and now he has GHOSTED us for the last 3 weeks. That's 15 business days since we emailed him and CC'd his paralegal with time-sensitive court document that need a reply by March 10th.
We sent 3 follow up emails each with subsequent attachments (court docs) that we'd received following the initial email. We asked for a simple reply to verify that they were received. 15 business days and not a single reply.
We called his law firm a couple times, but it says "This number is not setup to accept voice calls". We have maintained a completely calm and professional demeanor throughout the entire correspondence.
His record shows a professional misconduct strike in 2017 for which he received a probation and a professional reprimand. Nothing since and no signs to cause major concerns, outside the current frust
... keep reading on reddit ➡
"Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek!"
Those words have led off the Legal Geek segment for over 6 years. Hard to believe it's been that long.
When Current Geek relaunched as a show in 2013, I had been looking for a way to extend my growing passion/hobby for audio content production into the field where I spend my "day job," that being an attorney. A weekly show in the Frogpants community that covered geeky news on a regular basis seemed to be a perfect place for me to share my thoughts and explanations on legal cases and current events, especially where they blended into my fields of interest, including intellectual property and geek-dom.
So I took a bit of a flier and asked Scott Johnson and Tom Merritt if they would play my segments at the end of their Current Geek episodes beginning in January 2014. They graciously agreed, and that led to 202 Legal Geek segments over the next 6+ years. Considering I started a few episodes into this iteration of Current Geek and the fact that they had 257 total episodes between 2013-2020, there were not too many weeks where Legal Geek was missing at the end of the show. Back when the Current Geek show was more oriented around guests, I was even brought on once as a primary show guest in 2017 in episode 137 entitled "Legal Things."
The segment challenged me in ways I couldn't expect, but in a good way as I tried to explain legal decisions and concepts quickly so they could be understood by the common man. It's also led to some fun unexpected personal anecdotes like the time when I was recognized by voice as being "the Legal Geek guy" at a Pokemon Go raid in Cincinnati...the reach of the show and my segment never ceased to surprise like that. Similar experiences at conventions like GenCon and Nerdtacular happened over the years as well. It was amazing to find a voice in this community and contribute what I could.
Which brings us to this post and July 2020.
Current Geek stopped in its current form at episode 257 in April 2020 and is preparing to relaunch in a completely different show style and production entitled Current Geek Chronicles. Unfortunately, the fully produced Chronicles show with its limited-run seasons no longer jives well with tacking Legal Geek segments on at the end. I've been informed that if I am invited to participate in Chronicles, it will be as a guest/expert on one of their deep dives rather than as a weekly feature.
Thus, the Legal Geek segment also ends with the end of the prior version of
... keep reading on reddit ➡"Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek!"
Those words have led off the Legal Geek segment for over 6 years. Hard to believe it's been that long.
When Current Geek relaunched as a show in 2013, I had been looking for a way to extend my growing passion/hobby for audio content production into the field where I spend my "day job," that being an attorney. A weekly show in the Frogpants community that covered geeky news on a regular basis seemed to be a perfect place for me to share my thoughts and explanations on legal cases and current events, especially where they blended into my fields of interest, including intellectual property and geek-dom.
So I took a bit of a flier and asked Scott Johnson and Tom Merritt if they would play my segments at the end of their Current Geek episodes beginning in January 2014. They graciously agreed, and that led to 202 Legal Geek segments over the next 6+ years. Considering I started a few episodes into this iteration of Current Geek and the fact that they had 257 total episodes between 2013-2020, there were not too many weeks where Legal Geek was missing at the end of the show. Back when the Current Geek show was more oriented around guests, I was even brought on once as a primary show guest in 2017 in episode 137 entitled "Legal Things."
The segment challenged me in ways I couldn't expect, but in a good way as I tried to explain legal decisions and concepts quickly so they could be understood by the common man. It's also led to some fun unexpected personal anecdotes like the time when I was recognized by voice as being "the Legal Geek guy" at a Pokemon Go raid in Cincinnati...the reach of the show and my segment never ceased to surprise like that. Similar experiences at conventions like GenCon and Nerdtacular happened over the years as well. It was amazing to find a voice in this community and contribute what I could.
Which brings us to this post and July 2020.
Current Geek stopped in its current form at episode 257 in April 2020 and is preparing to relaunch in a completely different show style and production entitled Current Geek Chronicles. Unfortunately, the fully produced Chronicles show with its limited-run seasons no longer jives well with tacking Legal Geek segments on at the end. I've been informed that if I am invited to participate in Chronicles, it will be as a guest/expert on one of their deep dives rather than as a weekly feature.
Thus, the Legal Geek segment also ends with the end of the prior version of C
... keep reading on reddit ➡