Joe B. has sued Leland's (follow up to closed "beware" thread)

[Peter_Spaeth]

My uncle out in Texas
Can't even write his name
He signs his checks with Xs
But they cash them just the same.

[Vintage Vern]

It looks like the same signature from the poster that said he won a 40 grand Jordan card that never got delivered, but was signed for.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction denied. Evidently there was an agreement designating New Jersey as the sole forum for dispute resolution. This means the NY suit likely will be dismissed.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nys...REr0QK0FCT7A==

[puckpaul]

Par for the course with this plaintiff. Not a serious guy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Par for the course with this plaintiff. Not a serious guy.

This one may be on the lawyer.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction denied. Evidently there was an agreement designating New Jersey as the sole forum for dispute resolution. This means the NY suit likely will be dismissed.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nys...REr0QK0FCT7A==

A lot of lawyering go on here. Defendant argued in NJ that NY case should proceed because it was filed first, then argued in NY that the NJ court is the proper forum. NJ court stayed its action pending the outcome in NY.
The decision to not have the matter proceed on parallel tracks is proper, if only to avoid potential inconsistent or contradictory results. So now we turn to New Jersey, which may or may not have publicly available filings.
Nothing of substance accomplished yet that can be seen of record, as far as I know anyway.

EDITED TO ADD I should say that there has been no decision on the merits of the claims. However, the NJ court already imposed injunctive relief. As I read it, defendant argued that they pulled lots from their auction and none are about to be sold at this time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

First reference I have seen to the separate Standard Note and Security Agreement with the forum selection clause, though I have not followed this closely. I guess I'll have to read the briefs if I really care to figure it out, but based on what Todd just said, it does seem the court could have found that Leland's waived the forum selection clause argument by previously claiming New York not New Jersey was the proper forum. Talk about a Catch 22.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

First reference I have seen to the separate Standard Note and Security Agreement with the forum selection clause, though I have not followed this closely. I guess I'll have to read the briefs if I really care to figure it out, but based on what Todd just said, it does seem the court could have found that Leland's waived the forum selection clause argument by previously claiming New York not New Jersey was the proper forum. Talk about a Catch 22.

That's just it-- seems the NY court is going to honor the choice of forum clause rather than waive its enforcement, and is kicking the case over to New Jersey. I am not sure how much it matters, since the choice of NJ law provision will likely hold either way. I too am not about to read the file-- I just saw a couple of letters submitted to the Court by counsel and took them at face value.

[paul]

I have an outside the courtroom update on this matter. One of the lots pulled from the Lelands auction because of this dispute was Tom Seaver's 1966 contract with Topps. I noticed that the same item very recently sold in Hunt's live auction. That was a pretty quick turnaround for the consignor to get the item to Hunt's. And I wonder if there was any disclosure to Hunt's about the dispute over this item. Or has Lelands agreed that it does not have the exclusive right to sell the items it pulled from its auction?

[mannequin1]

Has there been any resolution ?