Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't think motive comes into it.

Although this arrangement seems awfully french* to me, both Arizona and California are community property states (husband and wife are liable for each others debts).

My guess is that in order to enforce a judgment against community property, it might be necessary to name a spouse as a party in a lawsuit in order to give them notice and a chance to defend, even though they weren't involved in the tortious activity. Otherwise a judgment creditor might encounter difficulties actually collecting money.





* in this case I think it is a result of spanish / mexican influence in the west of the US way back in the day rather than the french, I just automatically think of the french when I see civil law due to Quebec.

 Enigwolf wrote:
Janth, would it be on-topic to be discussing and clarifying the finer nuances legal terms and tactics as such being utilized in the case for those unfamiliar with legal matters?

Sure, no problems with that.

czakk wrote:
* in this case I think it is a result of spanish / mexican influence in the west of the US way back in the day rather than the french, I just automatically think of the french when I see civil law due to Quebec.

I think Louisiana; it's the only civil law jurisdiction in the US.

Community property is a civil law concept that's been adopted by some of your states (although they remain common law for the rest of it). Apparently California's regime dates back to like 1850 and was based on the spanish system.

czakk wrote:
Community property is a civil law concept that's been adopted by some of your states (although they remain common law for the rest of it). Apparently California's regime dates back to like 1850 and was based on the spanish system.

Spoiler:

It actually comes up in tax history - when the income tax system was implemented married folks who lived in community property states were able to spit their income and pay less tax than folks in other states.

Less of an issue now because Americans can choose to joint file, but it caused a fuss back in the 1930s-1940s.

So for the non-attorney's amongst us...

Nick's female relative is named so that damages could be collected? If that is so would Jane Doe Hayden have to be his wife? My assumption being that his mother or sister would not be a communal owner of his goods?

Marcus Scipio wrote:

czakk wrote:
Community property is a civil law concept that's been adopted by some of your states (although they remain common law for the rest of it). Apparently California's regime dates back to like 1850 and was based on the spanish system.

Spoiler:

It actually comes up in tax history - when the income tax system was implemented married folks who lived in community property states were able to spit their income and pay less tax than folks in other states.

Less of an issue now because Americans can choose to joint file, but it caused a fuss back in the 1930s-1940s.

So for the non-attorney's amongst us...

Nick's female relative is named so that damages could be collected? If that is so would Jane Doe Hayden have to be his wife? My assumption being that his mother or sister would not be a communal owner of his goods?

It's his wife. If you read the filings, she is stated to be in a "legal partnership" or something with him (I can't remember the exact words, but it's implied to be his wife)

Or, if you look at the recap site the czakk posted, she's listed explicitly as his (or a) wife.

http://ia601800.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.azd.785018/gov.uscourts.azd.785018.docket.html

Battlefoam brings suit against BoK in California.

BoK gains probono representation by Mark Randazza and Gill Sperlein

Battlefoam attempts to move the case to Arizona. This would then require BoK to obtain counsel in California, and deprive them of the direct representation by Messrs Randazza and Sperlain.

Anyone who reads Popehat regularly should know that hearing Randazza is going to be appearing against you in a 1st amendment case causes opposing counsel to begin reconsidering their chosen profession.

Obtaining them as counsel was likely the reason for the attempt to move jurisdiction (or at the minimum it's a significant bonus to doing so).

Not quite evilref.

BOK actually brought the suit against battlefoam in California at this stage Randazza was already on board. This was a declaratory relief action. This is basically a suit a defendant brings against a legal threat (The C&D letter from battlefoam) that forces the issue into court, i.e. put up or shut up.

Battlefoam have then raised the case in Arizona. The resident Dakka legal people will have to explain the potential outcomes of this and if a win in California precludes the AZ case from continuing or will just help.

Getting Randazza on board is definitely a huge boon for BOK and Romeo doesn't seem to be helping himself with the public comments.

I think the next interesting thing we will see is the Battlefoam responses to the witness statements which were pretty damning to the Battlefoam case. I'm not sure how they can respond without claiming the witnesses have perjured themselves.

If this does happen can the witnesses claim defamation from Battlefoam? I know in the UK they would not be able to as you can say what you want in a court case without fear of legal reprisal but I'm not sure if the same applies to the US system.

Randazza is licenced to appear in Arizona (he's based out of Las Vegas I believe so it might even be closer to him). Moving jurisdictions isn't going to make him disappear.

czakk - just wanted to say how much I appreciate your analysis of this (and other legal cases) on this forum. It's incredibly helpful to cut through some of the speculation sometimes.

As mentioned before, moving the case from California to Arizona prevents BoK from using the anti-SLAPP statutes as a working platform for the defense for their 1st Amendment rights.

morkian wrote:
Not quite evilref.

BOK actually brought the suit against battlefoam in California at this stage Randazza was already on board. This was a declaratory relief action. This is basically a suit a defendant brings against a legal threat (The C&D letter from battlefoam) that forces the issue into court, i.e. put up or shut up.

Ahh, I assumed battlefoam had brought it, then BoK got representation, in which case yep, avoiding SLAPP (not having to deal directly with Randazza,as they'd need local counsel as well, is the cherry on top).

morkian wrote:
If this does happen can the witnesses claim defamation from Battlefoam? I know in the UK they would not be able to as you can say what you want in a court case without fear of legal reprisal but I'm not sure if the same applies to the US system.

Silly question, but wouldn't that only cover you for what is said in court, not on your own podcast?

Federal court in Arizona has punted back to the State Court:

The Notice of Removal states “Defendants Hayden and Jane Doe Hayden are
residents of the State of California, located in Contra Costa County.”1 It also states “Plaintiff
Battle Foam is a citizen of California,” and “Plaintiff Outlaw Miniatures is a citizen of
California.”2 (Doc. 1 at 2). Based on these allegations, diversity of citizenship does not exist
and this case must be remanded. See Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 784-85 (9th Cir. 1992)
(district courts may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

From the Notice of Removal:

7. Plaintiff Battle Foam is an Arizona limited liability company. Complaint ¶ 2.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is a citizen of the state in which it is
incorporated and of the state where it maintains its principal place of business.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Battle Foam is a citizen of California.
8. Plaintiff Outlaw Miniatures is an Arizona limited liability company.
Complaint ¶ 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is a citizen of the state in
which it is incorporated and of the state where it maintains its principal place of business.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Outlaw Miniatures is a citizen of California.
9. Therefore, complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Looks like a typo in the original document - perhaps someone filled out a precedent incorrectly and stuck California where it should say Arizona. Presumably there's a way of amending / refiling if that is the case.

So then it's back to Cali where the Anti-SLAPP laws are in effect?

12thRonin wrote:
So then it's back to Cali where the Anti-SLAPP laws are in effect?

It's still going on in California, we have two proceedings going on in tandem / parallel for now. This proceeding got sent back to Arizona state court (I guess I should have said that more clearly).

Weird, so there's a clerical error, but the case is going back to Arizona and not California? Or am I not following?

 kronk wrote:
Weird, so there's a clerical error, but the case is going back to Arizona and not California? Or am I not following?

In Universe 1 (California) we have BOK's request for declaratory relief, Battle Foam's cross claims, Battle Foam's motion for forum non conveniens and Mr. Filip's motion for no jurisdiction. There are some hearings on all of that coming up in July. Filip et all would like to move the case to Arizona.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In parallel Universe 2 (Arizona) we have Battle Foam, Filip, Outlaw Miniatures suing BOK. BOK tried to move the case from Arizona Superior Court (State) to the US District Court of Arizona (Federal Court). The Federal court just said "you don't meet the requirements to be in federal court, go back to the state court".




Two different cases, but covering all the same stuff. Eventually one of the cases will be stayed (put on hold) or dismissed. This last round of documents is from Case # 2 in Arizona.

Czakk, that is nicely and succinctly put. Thank you for that!

Does one court have to back down ?

Would it be possible for both to belive they have jurisdiction and end up ruling on it ?

Czakk, the two lawsuits don't have to be stayed, or even one dismissed. It is the perview of the courts to make that decision, if they even have to. Depending on the true formal wording, and the designs of who sued who first. I honestly see both playing out, draining both parties of funds they sorely don't need to lose. And pro bono only goes so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Does one court have to back down ?

Would it be possible for both to belive they have jurisdiction and end up ruling on it ?

Neither court has to back down, because it is officially two seperate law suits. Since the state of origin for each suit is different, they both can claim jurisdiction over the respective suit. The California case would probably go first, and then the Arizona one would then occur, since California has priority as their docket had the lawsuit first, but it could become a massive Charlie Foxtrot if the Arizona court decides to try and run the case simultaneously.


Editted Because I had no idea about the appended next post... Embarassed now!

You folks down south would really run the same case twice? I mean, theoretically both courts could insist on trying the case but it's the same facts and legal issues - issue estoppel / res judicata would kick in pretty fast no?

Or even worse, conflicting judgments.

Well, that didn't take long:

On June 19, this Court entered an order remanding the action to Maricopa County
11 Superior Court (ECF 6). This Order was based on the erroneous statements by Defendant’s
12 counsel that Plaintiffs Battle Foam LLC and Outlaw Miniatures LLC were “citizens of
13 California.” However, throughout the notice of removal and Plaintiffs’ complaint, it is
14 clear that, despite this typographical error, Battle Foam LLC and Outlaw Miniatures LLC
15 are, along with Plaintiff Filip, residents of Arizona. As such, this action is properly
16 removed to this Court and the prior order (ECF 6) should be reconsidered and reversed.

Oh - and as an exhibit we have Battle Foam and Mr. Filips motion for forum non conveniens filed in California.

The first case only listed Battlefoam until the whole shebang exploded. So even with the revisions, the second case had more persons of interest. Yes, there is res judicata, but the problem is how the case is presented in California, and the rulings therein. Otherwise, Arizona (and the case there,) could just as easily happen.

Also, think about timing. IIRC, Judges in Arizona are elected, not appointed. Can't really have bad press as a judge unless you take bribes, and Arizona, as an judiciary body doesn't like being dictated to, by California, unless absolutely necessary. So if it was far too similar (which it may or may not be, since we aren't privy to the full filings and information disclosures,) California could ask Arizona not to intercede, but Arizona, as of right now, has full rights and privaleges to try the civil case as well. Which the civil case is the big sticking point we have to look at.

From my understanding it went..

Universe 1: Bok files suit against C&D letter by BF (only target is BF and Owner.) BF counter sues, targets BOK and a couple of others (all attached to BoK.) Still only BF and BOK (and co.) As more information is added...

Universe 2: BK owner utilizes Arizona courts to file full suit. Brings his other owned companies into the knowledge pool for use. BOK attempts to make it a federal case.. which it isn't, and gets slapped back down to state court.

And now here we are. Overly simplified at the end, but I hope it gets the point across.


Edit: What you posted is simply from the Federal court case that BoK attempted to turn this into. Since it comes from Arizona, this is still Universe 2 stuff. California still has docket precedence so they will hear it first.

It's a filing by BoK in federal court in an attempt to correct the typo.

Attached as an exhibit is a filing from the California case. I just noted it because we haven't seen much from California (because its not available electronically).

czakk wrote:
You folks down south would really run the same case twice? I mean, theoretically both courts could insist on trying the case but it's the same facts and legal issues - issue estoppel / res judicata would kick in pretty fast no?

Or even worse, conflicting judgments.

I would assume so. I do not see two courts wishing to deal with what is, for all intents and purposes, the same case with the same set of facts. It is a waste of time and money for the public.

Edit: somewheresomehow makes some very good points. The cases are different, can both be handled separately, and there could be an inclination for the courts to do so. However, if a judge had a good excuse to dump a case like this, I would bet on it being dumped. At the end of the day, this is a silly little case with a pro-bono CA lawyer making an issue out of it (this is no reflection on Mr. Hayden's counsel, but I can see a state court judge looking at it that way). I do not see many judges having a high degree of patience for this set of facts.

Having read all this thread, why is this lawsuit going ahead? It seems rather petty to be honest and it is just going to eat up money for no good reason. Far worse has been send about Romeo and his volatile nature and dubious selling by many other people on many other sites.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Having read all this thread, why is this lawsuit going ahead? It seems rather petty to be honest and it is just going to eat up money for no good reason. Far worse has been send about Romeo and his volatile nature and dubious selling by many other people on many other sites.

Because apparently, according to Romeo, BF lost a lot of money from the BoK post.

Because BoK used their influence to throw themselves a rage party on the WWX ks page, which caused Romeo to rage. So, it influenced both BF and WWX. (Or that is what I have heard elsewhere about how it actually started, unless I missed an earlier useless rant from BoK about an angry Romeo?)

czakk wrote:
It's a filing by BoK in federal court in an attempt to correct the typo.

Attached as an exhibit is a filing from the California case. I just noted it because we haven't seen much from California (because its not available electronically).

So when is the next/first hearing or whatever?