Yoda 1 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070531/20070531006033.html?.v=1Judge Denies Players Motion for Summary Judgment against WPT Enterprises in Antitrust LawsuitThursday May 31, 4:00 pm ET LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In the antitrust lawsuit brought against WPT Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ:WPTE - News) by seven professional poker players, United States District Judge Otis D. Wright II denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on March 14, 2007, by plaintiffs Chris Ferguson, Andrew Bloch, Annie Duke, Joseph Hachem, Phil Gordon, Howard Lederer, and Greg Raymer.ADVERTISEMENT WPTE filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion on April 12, 2007, to which the plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief. After review of the parties' submissions, as well as the arguments advanced by counsel at a hearing on May 14, the court on May 22nd denied the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment."We are very pleased with Judge Wright's order denying the Motion for Summary Judgment," said WPTE's General Counsel, Adam Pliska. "We feel that this decision confirms our contention that this case is without merit."WPTE has engaged the law firms of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher and Brownstein, Hyatt and Farber in connection with this case.For full details or to review the Order, visit http://www.worldpokertour.com/media/.Ungrateful...damnit. I hate how you can't edit topics! :)Edit by Theresa: But I can. You're welcomed. Link to post Share on other sites
sholden 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Hardly "off the hook". A summary judgement being requested and denied is pretty much the standard procedure. It's not very often the judge says "Oh yes you're right and the other guy is completely wrong, no need for a trial I'll just declare that you win". You'd be crazy not to ask of course. Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 Yes, maybe not completely off the hook. You never know with the courts. But since many people think it's a ridiculous lawsuit, this is a positive step Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 doesn't this just mean that they actually HAVE to go to court now? Link to post Share on other sites
GrouchPotato 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Yes, maybe not completely off the hook. You never know with the courts. But since many people think it's a ridiculous lawsuit, this is a positive step Just because people think it is a ridiculous lawsuit doesn't mean that it is or that the denial of summary judgment is a positive step. Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 ::shrug:: "We are very pleased with Judge Wright's order denying the Motion for Summary Judgment," said WPTE's General Counsel, Adam Pliska. "We feel that this decision confirms our contention that this case is without merit."if the WPT general counsel is pleased, i'm pleased. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Croc, what does this mean? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Hardly "off the hook". A summary judgement being requested and denied is pretty much the standard procedure. It's not very often the judge says "Oh yes you're right and the other guy is completely wrong, no need for a trial I'll just declare that you win". You'd be crazy not to ask of course.I don't think it's true that motions for SJ are rarely granted, however it is in my understanding fairly routine to make such a motion before trial (nothing to lose, lots to gain). From wikipedia:In U.S. legal practice summary judgment can be awarded by the court prior to trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. Issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that: - there are no issues of "material" fact requiring a trial for their resolution, and - in applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to judgment.A party making a motion for summary judgment (or making any other motion) is called a "moving party." A "material fact" is one which, depending upon what the factfinder believes "really happened," could lead to judgment in favor of one party, rather than the other.....Summary judgment is awarded if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for one party to prevail if the matter were to proceed to trial. Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 ::shrug:: "We are very pleased with Judge Wright's order denying the Motion for Summary Judgment," said WPTE's General Counsel, Adam Pliska. "We feel that this decision confirms our contention that this case is without merit."if the WPT general counsel is pleased, i'm pleased.sheep, god forbid the WPT be forced to give players some consideration. Link to post Share on other sites
sholden 0 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I don't think it's true that motions for SJ are rarely granted, however it is in my understanding fairly routine to make such a motion before trial (nothing to lose, lots to gain). From wikipedia:In U.S. legal practice summary judgment can be awarded by the court prior to trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. Issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that: - there are no issues of "material" fact requiring a trial for their resolution, and - in applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to judgment.A party making a motion for summary judgment (or making any other motion) is called a "moving party." A "material fact" is one which, depending upon what the factfinder believes "really happened," could lead to judgment in favor of one party, rather than the other.....Summary judgment is awarded if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for one party to prevail if the matter were to proceed to trial. summary judgement motions for the whole thing I would expect are rarely granted. After all the losing side would have to be retarded not to settle before it got that far in such a clear cut case. Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 sheep, god forbid the WPT be forced to give players some consideration.Not to re-beat a dead horse, but they are whining about a waiver they have to sign to play, when in fact, they can just choose not to play WPT events at all! I have no sympathy for them..Also, my motives for WPTE victory lies not in the players rights, but in the stock price Regardless, I side against this ridiculous lawsuit.I don't think this is as big a deal as I thought it was when I first skimmed the article, but it was newsworthy so I wanted to share with the group. Take out of it what you will! Link to post Share on other sites
finztotheleft 0 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Yes, maybe not completely off the hook. You never know with the courts. But since many people think it's a ridiculous lawsuit, this is a positive step Some people think it's a ridiculous law suit.Some of us think the lawsuit has some merit. Link to post Share on other sites
DanielNegreanu 141 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Some people think it's a ridiculous law suit.Some of us think the lawsuit has some merit. Count me in on the ridiculous side Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Count me in on the ridiculous side Count me in on the merit side Link to post Share on other sites
finztotheleft 0 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Count me in on the ridiculous side Shhhh, some of your new Pokerstars commrades are on the "merit" side. My husband disagrees with me quite a bit too, so you are in good company Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now