ofwpinoychannel

 On 7 August 2021 The Channel Islands of ofwpinoychannel and Iseo are scheduled for a hearing by The Superior Court of Santa Cataractica, Florida. On this day The Court is expected to issue an Order Granting a Default and Pre-emption Motion by plaintiff filed by The WIPC. It is likely that the scheduling of the hearing will be contingent on the outcome of the WIPC Case.

On 7 August the parties are due in court for a two-day pre-trial conference scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. in Room 4 of the court house of the court of the same court. A written report of the proceedings due from the counsel for both parties and an estimate of the fees due from the defendants is also to be submitted to the court for approval. If either side requests a written estimate of attorney fees prior to the conference it is to be provided without cost. This is the first appearance of the parties for a proposed order granting a default judgment and final default judgment against the defendants.

If the parties can agree on a schedule to submit evidence regarding the issues and whether the defendants will be ordered to produce financial records for the purpose of their Answer to the complaint, then the case will be considered ready for trial by the end of the year in 2021. If either party agrees to the time for the defendants to be served with papers to serve a copy of the complaint and answer and to serve a defendant warrant of arrest, then the case will be continued to the end of the year, if necessary. It is possible that the parties may decide to continue the case after the end of the year if they believe that issue and answer would require further argument or time for research. A party filing a post-facto joinder against another party is not required to serve the complaint or answer. This means that the plaintiff filing the post-facto joinder merely has to file the complaint and answer with the appropriate pleadings.

On September 8th, a motion to dismiss was filed by the Plaintiff's counsel to amend the schedule of the case, to extend the time to start discovery, to set a date for commencement of expert discovery and to include a new complaint to obtain a default judgment against defendant-plaintiff. On September 13th, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's counsel filed an answer to the complaint. On the same day, the Judge ordered discovery completed. On the following day, the plaintiff received a letter from the Office of the Clerk granting its motion to dismiss; the Clerk stated that the plaintiff's request was denied because there was a failure to state a claim, the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, there was no proof that the claim was genuine, the claim was inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial, the claim was improper under the law, the claim failed to show that there was any actual damage, or that a declaratory judgment would lead to a summary judgment.

On August 9th, I served the Defendant-Plaintiff with a Certified Notice of Default and a Certified Answer to an additional Complaint. On August 10th, the defendant-plaintiff received a copy of the Complaint, which contained two exhibits. In my opinion, I advised the Defendant-Plaintiff that unless the parties agreed on an agreement to hold harmless, the case would proceed to trial. The District Court granted the motion for entry of temporary restraining order for the parties.

On September 13th, the plaintiff filed a report of amended complaint, adding new paragraphs concerning the allegedly infringing activities at issue, and correcting error. On the same day, the defendant-plaintiff filed an answer. On the same day, the Court entered its order granting the motion for entry of a temporary restraining order for both parties. On September 14th, the plaintiffs' counsel submitted a report signed by Judge Robert J. Kojer, stating that the parties had reached an agreement regarding a proposed jury trial date, and that there was a good chance that the trial would be delayed, if not dismissed altogether. Finally on September 20th, the defendants filed their answer, denying the allegations of liability and damages.