You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: A general lawsuit info thread
While reading about the Ministry lawsuit between Al Jourgensen and Paul Barker, I stumbled onto the official website of Los Angeles Superior Court. I found out that one can monitor developments on various cases filed in LASC, provided the case number is known. Filings can be also searched up based on known party members, yet it costs a bit.
I tried it out with a couple of GNR-related lawsuits.
Security Guard Claims Axl Gave Him the Boot, filed on 08/29/07 (court document)
Case Number: EC045529
GARY ARMIJO VS W. AXL ROSE, ET AL
Filing Date: 08/29/2007
Case Type: Intentional PI/PD/WD (eg. assault) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
Future Hearings
01/04/2008 at 08:30 am in department NCBB at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502
Motion to Strike (PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT AND CLAIMFOR ATTY FEES)
01/16/2008 at 08:30 am in department NCBB at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502
Conference-Case Management
--
Axl v. Slash & Duff, filed on 04/29/04 (court document)
Case Number: SC081543
SAUL HUDSON ET. AL. VS. W. AXL ROSE
Filing Date: 04/29/2004
Case Type: Contract - Tortious Interference (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Dismissed - Other 05/22/2006
--
This information comes without the meat and potatoes (exhibits), but it's an easy way to maintain in the loop on cases of interest. I might note that while Slash's filing on the ownership of the GNR back catalogue received a fair amount of media attention, I can't remember a single story on the case being dropped two years later. In that sense, something like this may serve a purpose, as I can't see lawsuits ceasing around Axl anytime soon.
Re: A general lawsuit info thread
A. Background Facts Relevant To The Relationship Between UMG And Guns N' Roses
The relationship between Guns N' Roses and UMG's Geffen Records division dates back to 1986, when Geffen's corporate predecessor, The David Geffen Company, entered into a recording agreement with five individuals, Steven Adler, Izzy Stradlin, Michael 'Duff McKagan, Saul Hudson (p/k/a 'Slash') and W. Axl Rose, who were professionally known as 'Guns N' Roses.' Hoffman Decl. ¶ 2. In 1992, Geffen's corporate predecessor entered into a new recording agreement with Messrs. Hudson, McKagan and Rose dated September 1, 1992 (hereinafter the 'Recording Agreement'). Prior to the signing of the 1992 Recording Agreement, Adler and Stradlin had left the band (although they still retained a royalty interest in master recordings created under the original 1986 agreement during their tenure in the band.) Id.
Since 1992, the parties have executed various amendments to the Recording Agreement, including most notably, two amendments dated as of May 1, 1998. One of these amendments, see Froeling Decl. Ex. D, confirmed Slash's and Duff's departure from the band and their status as 'Leaving Members' under the 1992 Recording Agreement, thereby relieving them of charges against their royalty accounts for the enormous recording costs and other expenses being incurred by Axl Rose (the only 'Remaining Member'[FN1] of Guns N' Roses) in connection with the recording of the new Guns N' Roses studio album. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 3. Slash and Duff, like Stradlin and Adler before them, retained a royalty interest in masters created under the Recording Agreement prior to their departure from the band. Id In the other May 1, 1998 amendment, see Hoffman Decl. Ex. A, Axl Rose agreed, among other things, to deliver that new studio LP (which was even then long overdue under the Recording Agreement) no later than March 1, 1999 and received a substantial advance from Geffen in return. Hence, although other individuals have joined Axl Rose in performing under the name 'Guns N' Roses' since 1998, Rose is the only principal in the band. Id.
FN1. 'Leaving Member' and 'Remaining Member' are both defined terms as used in Paragraph 17.02 of the Recording Agreement.
B. Plaintiffs Were Notified Of The March 15 And March 23, 2004 Release Dates In January 2004
December 31, 2003 came and went without delivery of the studio LP, as had so many previous deadlines. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 6. Accordingly, in January 2004, Geffen resumed its plans to release the GHLP. At that time, Mr. Hoffman asked Ms. Lori Froeling to send another notice to Guns N' Roses pursuant to the Recording Agreement, informing Guns N' Roses that the GHLP would be released on March 23, 2004 in the United States and Canada, and on March 15, 2004 in other international territories. Ms. Froeling sent such a notice on January 22, 2004. The January 22 notice also indicated that the previously approved track listing and sequence had not changed. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 6; Froeling Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. F.
At no time after January 22, 2004 did Geffen Records ever indicate to Guns N' Roses, or any of its representatives, that Geffen was not intent on releasing the Guns N' Roses GHLP on the respective March 15 and March 23, 2004 release dates mentioned above. Hoffman ¶ 7. The release dates were in fact confirmed in a subsequent letter to Plaintiff Rose dated February 2, 2004. Marenberg Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. B. Froeling Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5. Accordingly, Mr. Rose, the only 'Remaining Member' of Guns N' Roses (as that term is defined in Section 17.02 of the Recording Agreement) was advised no later than January 22, 2004 of the March 23 and March 15, 2004 release dates for the Guns N' Roses GHLP in the United States and Canada and other international territories, respectively. 14. ¶ 6.
In connection with the release of the Guns N' Roses GHLP, Geffen has already paid $1 million dollars in advances to Rose and the four former members of Guns N' Roses. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 8. Specifically, Rose has received an advance of $257,545 for the GHLP; Slash and Duff have received an advance of $568,565 for them to split; and Messrs. Stradlin and Adler, who are not plaintiffs in the present lawsuit (and whose interests could be adversely affected by the issuance of the relief requested by Rose, Slash and Duff), have received advances of $ 136,228 and $37,662, respectively. Notably, plaintiffs did not file this suit until after they received these advances, and none of the three plaintiffs in this case who has received advances on account of the GHLP has offered to return it. Id.
just preserving this in the lawsuit thread.:butt:
Re: A general lawsuit info thread
As for the security guard:
01/04/2008 at 08:30 am in Department NCBB, Mink, Michael S., Presiding
Motion to Strike (PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT AND CLAIMFOR ATTY FEES) - Motion Granted in Part
motion to strike
n. a request for a judge's order to eliminate all or a portion of the legal pleading (complaint, answer) of the opposition on any one of several grounds. It is often used in an attempt to have an entire cause of action removed ("stricken") from the court record. A motion to strike is also made orally during trial to ask the judge to order "stricken" answers by a witness in violation of rules of evidence (laws covering what is admissible in trial). Even though the jury is admonished to ignore such an answer or some comment, the jury has heard it, and "a bell once rung, cannot be unrung." - source
The motion to strike was filed by Axl's lawyer a month ago, and it was naturally objected by the plaintiff.
12/03/2007 Notice of Motion (and motion to strike portions of complaint and for atty fees; req judicial notice; memo pts. & auth. )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant
So some of Axl's atty's demands were met. On the 16th, there'll be a Case Management Conference, after which there's a chance the case will no go any further.
01/16/2008 at 08:30 am in department NCBB at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502
Motion to Strike (PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT AND CLAIMFOR ATTY FEESC/F 01-04-08)
01/16/2008 at 08:30 am in department NCBB at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502
Conference-Case Management
What is a Case Management Conference (CMC)?
A CMC is a meeting that takes place at the Court House. Attendance at this meeting is limited to the Judge, and the parties (the Plaintiff and the Defendant). If party has a lawyer representing him or her, the lawyer may also attend. This meeting happens after the Plaintiff begins the lawsuit by filing the Claim/Summons, but before the trial. Generally, the CMC is 30 minutes to one-hour long.
This meeting is not a trial and, therefore, witnesses do not attend at this stage.
Why Have a CMC?
The CMC is a mandatory step in the Small Claims process for most of the civil claims filed. The purpose of this meeting is to try settling some or all of the issues in dispute before going to trial. This may mean that a trial is ultimately not necessary. However, if a trial is still needed, it might be shorter and simpler because some of the issues have been resolved at the CMC.
What Happens at a CMC?
The CMC begins with the judge and the parties meeting together to discuss the case. In certain situations, the judge may even take turns meeting with the parties separately to discuss each side of the case. Exactly how a meeting proceeds may vary from case to case.
During this meeting the Judge will give the parties input on their case, including:
- the Judge's assessment of the strengths or weaknesses of each party's evidence
- the Judge's opinion of the statute or common law that might apply
- the Judge's suggestions for possible resolution
- source
Re: A general lawsuit info thread
"Are you listening to me, mister security man?" *THUD*
Like any lawsuit, this one will drag on for some time. A trial date has been set, and if it should happen, expect a verdict October.
05/16/2008 at 08:30 am in department NCBB at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502
Motion to Strike (PORTIONS OF PLTFF'S SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT)
09/19/2008 at 08:45 am in department NCGD at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206
Crash Settlement Conference (FSC: 10-09-08, NC-BJ/t: 10-20-08)
10/09/2008 at 08:30 am in department NCBB at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502
Final Status Conference (JURY TRIAL SET ON OCTOBER 20, 2008CRASH 9-19-08)
10/20/2008 at 08:30 am in department NCBB at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502
Jury Trial (EST. 5 DAYS)
- Abbey_Road
- Rep: 16
Re: A general lawsuit info thread
Why are they doing all this for a bogus lawsuit. Isn't this security thing when everyone said GNR never toured at that time and it was like from 10 years ago? Or was the date wrong on the lawsuit? Someone please clarify.
- Gunslinger
- Rep: 88
Re: A general lawsuit info thread
That would make sense Neemo, I was kind of scratching my head until you said that.
Re: A general lawsuit info thread
Nope, this is an alleged incident from one of the Gibson Amphitheatre shows in December '06.
Funny enough, the document itself had 1996 in it, even though they got the date and the venue right. Who cares about all those pesky little details? 
