Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sequoia lawsuit: Sequoia removes lawsuit to Federal Court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 03:23 PM
Original message
Sequoia lawsuit: Sequoia removes lawsuit to Federal Court
Edited on Thu May-12-05 03:26 PM by Land Shark
They want to make a federal case out of this!

They have the "right" to do so, subject to our motion if we choose to make it to remand it to state court, and seek attorney fees and costs for the removal to federal court.

This has the effect of delaying discovery somewhat, but ultimately discovery goes faster in federal court because both sides are obligated to show their cards so to speak (through "laydown discovery") representing evidence of their claims and defenses without waiting for a request of some sort to do so.

However, if trade secrets are not part of Sequoia's claims or defenses they wouldn't have to produce them without receiving a request to do so....

We will weigh the ups and downs of federal court. The lawsuit is entirely state-law based though, and Sequoia is relying on brief reference to HAVA in a single state law claim, as well as the fact that we brought a federal law Magnusson Moss WArranty Act claim, but in order to bring such a thing in federal court there has to be over $50,000 at issue and we specifically pled that it was worth less than $50,000 (this concerns ONLY the denial of testing of Sequoia machines on the grounds it would "void" the warranty). Such damages (even though they would be ultimately donated or waived) are only whatever the denial of testing is worth, plus the injunctive relief (which is not a type of "damage") to void the contract because of its impact on public policy. Despite the narrower scope of the claim, Sequoia is claiming in its initial briefing that $5 million is at issue, so perhaps they think the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim is much bigger than planned.

The removal notice and their short brief is posted at www.votersunite.org (hit sequoia lawsuit link and scroll down, and also hit their link to give them a donation)

Really, all the claims in the complaint are just different ways or reasons to void the contract, if one looks at the relief requested at the end. Damages are purely incidental and beside the point in many ways.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. kickin' n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rigel99 Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. My GUT Says keep it as state based and local as possible
I don't understand all of what you posted, but I get the gist.

Just got back from Ohio Teach-in and really got the gravity of the situation there..

guess who's going to win.. lawsuits in the very deep and dirty county trenches... when you sue local folks it tends to get personal about how fraud percolates down to individuals responsible for perpetrating it.

My gut, landshark, is that they want to make it federal, don't give them what they want.. I believe Bush has more control federally than statewide and there is implied strategy here for your to keep it as you have filed it, in the state of Washington. The increased discovery is not worth the risk of having federal judges all considering making career moves in a fully GOP government for the next 20 years (the judges are not stupid they know what's happened and any solidly democratic judges will be weighing their career choices federally)...

ok, so that's my 2 cents worth.... don't be fooled by their tactics remember, what they want, we have to resist.. when they try to reframe we have to keep the same frame...

good luck and we're all rooting for you Landshark....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. some important considerations in the post above n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. My gut rumbles to the same tune as yours..
Know your judges...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rigel99 Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hey landshark?
does it have to be Sequoia? (or can it be any DRE vendor)

also, would you like me to get some Ohio folks to bind to your cause, I'm pretty sure they have one county, Lake, which uses Sequoia which we could do it under... but the question is what do we need to do, must we first get open records data or can we just do the declarative judgement without a written report of irregularities?

I have made great OH contacts and their teams are ready for legal actions like what you have done... how can I facilitate this?

later...
do you need attorneys that know election code or what else must we do...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rigel99 Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh Yeah...
for friday afternoon comic relief..
Here's the usual Image

and of course the music to go with it...
http://www.sharkattackphotos.com/Sounds/jawstheme.wav
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC