Russell Greer vs. Viatron Corporation, A-26-937678-C

Harvey Danger said:
Part 7 says "the non-prevailing Party shall be responsible for all costs and expenses"
Click to expand...
I interpret this clause that if no party prevails and a settlement is made, each party covers half.

So my prediction is this:
They will offer Greer 5000$ to go away, the arbitrator will say "take it, it won't get better", they settle with no prevailing party, Greer is settled with half the cost, exceeding the 5000$ reward, and Hardin will have the last laugh.

Greer will never pay and file a new lawsuit to fight the settlement.
 
I say the best situation is they agree to give him a small amount, and with all the fee shifting and everything else he ends up in the negative. Now that would just be fucking hilarious.
 
Sexy Potoo said:
Since when has something as insignificant as "You already agreed to this, you can't back out or appeal it for any reason" stopped Greer from filing a motion to undue the thing that already happened?
Click to expand...
Well, there's not much wiggle room as Russ had discovered in his Fremantle suit. He agreed to it, and now he'll suffer
 
Gobermental Supervisor said:
I interpret this clause that if no party prevails and a settlement is made, each party covers half.

So my prediction is this:
They will offer Greer 5000$ to go away, the arbitrator will say "take it, it won't get better", they settle with no prevailing party, Greer is settled with half the cost, exceeding the 5000$ reward, and Hardin will have the last laugh.

Greer will never pay and file a new lawsuit to fight the settlement.
Click to expand...
"Non-prevailing party" obviously means "the losing party" because otherwise the whole paragraph doesn't make sense
 
Gobermental Supervisor said:
I mean that if they settle and neither party wins or loses their claim outright.
If nobody wins/loses, equal split of the cost?
Click to expand...
If JAMS did not decide a winner, then each party will likely bear the costs they themselves inccured. If they settle, they will obviously decide the costs alongside it.
 
AnOminous said:
They're literally hand-picked by the corporation and their job is literally to rule in favor of the corporation every time.
Click to expand...
The notion that arbitrators rule in favor of corporations when compared to state and federal judges is something that sounds true and is widely believed, but I have personally not seen borne out in reality. Arbitrators are generally retired federal or state judges who had good reputations at retirement. They decide cases using the same substantive law and likely have the same philosophy that they did on the bench.

Arbitration is generally seen as preferable by companies because the process is way more streamlined. If you are a company that has repeatedly paid out $50k nuisance settlements to avoid spending $250k "winning" a case in federal court, cutting out many of the procedural steps seems highly appealing. Arbitration allows for trying cases that could easily cost $250k in federal court for $100k. It's like a cross between federal court and small claims court. The judge gets a limited number of filings from each side, reviews the law and evidence, makes a decision, and everybody goes home.

In the case of Greer, Greer's only realistic path to the big payout he wants is by using the cost of litigation as leverage. He is good at this. If Greer somehow won Greer v. Moon outright, he would likely win around $10k in damages for copyright infringement (statutory damages awards are almost always near the minimum). He has been able to use the fact that he might be entitled $10k to force the defendants to spend 6 years defending. The defense cost would likely have exceed $300k if both attorneys were not under-billing. If Greer offered to settle that case for $20k, a purely self-interested defendant would jump at the opportunity, despite risking only $10k if they lose. Arbitration gives up that leverage. This decision likely caps the realistic worst case scenario at Greer winning $20k + lost wages, rather than a big payout to go away.
 
artis.png
What a name, is she a zoo?

AnOminous said:
The two bozo dipshits handling Greer v. Moon should be given a life sentence that any lolsuit by Greer anywhere gets assigned to them.
Click to expand...
How about this?
The two bozo dipshits handling Greer v. Moon should be given a life sentence.

Dumbledore's Onlyfans said:
Does this eliminate or even reduce the chances that Greer will be referred for criminal charges after the arbitration is settled? Because if the answer to this question is "yes", that may explain why Greer took such a retarded deal.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be totally seperate? Wouldn't this be one of those cases where it doesn't matter if you "press charges", because of the severity of the charges? It would be up to a DA to choose whether or not to prostitute.
Of course my knowledge of the US system is totally superficial.
 
Last edited:
LOWERCASE LETTERS said:
Lmao what a fucking retard. This is almost the worst possible move he could have made short of taking a shit on the courtroom floor.
Click to expand...
The list of things Greer was going to spend that $200k on kept growing. He's probably desperate for a payout now.
 
If Greer loses this, there's a non-zero chance he files a "Motion to Undue" and lists every single thing that happened during arbitration.
 
He's going to be so frustrated that he can't just explaaaaiiin in his usual meandering, dishonest way.

He actually thinks calling something a severance package and no-showing on the day you're told to be back in the office is not effectively just quitting without notice.

No, the severance comment doesn't count because he said that by accident! Also, when he jacked up the demand even further, ViaTRON aren't allowed takesie backsies of the original offer. Really, when you think about it, he's owed 220K despite the fact that ViaTRON ultimately never agreed to pay him anything.

Good luck trying to spin that yarn to an arbitrator who'll be armed with the facts and hasn't been playing telephone via a docket for the last 6 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom