Otterbox

Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, IPLore said:

GS and/or their lawyers seem to have made some mistakes so far.

I counted back assuming a 6 year jurisdiction and I think they are okay.....but there are plenty of 3 year jurisdictions. I haven't heard which jurisdiction they filed the new case. Have you? 

 

If I understand correctly what Pam of Improper Course is saying at http://www.impropercourse.com/2017/11/lp-at-it-again.html the Kirby and Global Sailing cases against LP and Rastegar have been joined and the joint case is being heard in US District Court in Connecticut.

Doc+321+-+Joining+Related+Cases.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dog Watch and @Team_GBR - Some see the glass half empty and some see it half full.  Both are valid and accurate.  I am not saying things are perfect especially re supply.  But if you just look at numbers and compare to other classes Laser has done and continues to do well. Great boat and class both for high caliber Olympic level sailors as well as for junior sailors.  Generic sails...yes GBR, I see that as a huge positive and the class look the other way attitude at the club level a great thing for access... and all.  Not saying its perfect.  But come on.  It ain't nearly dead and it ain't nearly dying (nowhere near as fast as many other classes are).  Don't know how to more fairly describe it than to say it just keeps rolling along...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

In June judge rejects GS's motion to amend (aka reinstate) their counterclaim...so GS files a new suit ..in October it is consolidated with the Kirby case and it is back in front of their favorite judge again,  the honorable Jeffrey Alker Meyer. http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/biography-district-judge-jeffrey-alker-meyer

It is worth quoting JAM's ruling on GS's motion to amend

 

Quote

 

GSL's Motion to Amend

As to GSL's motion to amend its answer to add counterclaims (Doc. #298), I conclude that the motion is manifestly untimely and that GSL has not shown good cause for its late filing. The "good cause" inquiry turns on whether the moving party displayed some degree of diligence in moving to amend his or her complaint. See, e.g., Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 244 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that "the primary consideration is whether the moving party can demonstrate diligence"). "A party fails to show good cause when the proposed amendment rests on information that the party knew, or should have known, in advance of the deadline." Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 193, 197 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

GSL argues that it did not attempt to bring claims for royalties earlier because, until the Court's summary judgment ruling, "it believed that the Kirby Plaintiffs were the appropriate party to do so." Doc. #298-1 at 3. But defendants asserted the standing defense—arguing that the Kirby plaintiffs had transferred their contract rights to GSL—from the start of this case. Therefore, even if GSL believed that the Kirby plaintiffs were the ones who had standing, GSL was certainly on notice in 2013 of the possibility that the Court might ultimately agree with defendants, and thus GSL could have preserved these claims by asserting them four years ago in 2013.

But even assuming that GSL was justified in waiting until after the Court ruled on whether the Kirby plaintiffs had transferred their rights to GSL, nine months elapsed between my summary judgment ruling and GSL's motion for leave to amend. GSL has not demonstrated good cause for this delay. The fact that the parties were engaged in settlement discussions does not excuse GSL's lack of diligence. See Gullo v. City of N.Y., 540 Fed. App'x 45, 47 (2d Cir. 2013) (affirming district court's denial of motion to amend complaint that was untimely filed three months after plaintiffs learned facts that warranted amendment and notwithstanding plaintiffs' claim that their delay was justified by ongoing settlement discussions and would not prejudice defendants).

Moreover, according to GSL's reply, the parties were attempting to settle the case "until at least late February of this year." Doc. #310 at 8. GSL offers no explanation for the time that elapsed between the end of settlement attempts in late February and the filing of the motion to amend the complaint almost three months later in May. Moreover, in addition to finding that GSL did not act diligently, I find that the proposed amendment would prejudice defendants in this case, largely for the reasons indicated by defendants in their opposition briefing and at oral argument. Accordingly, I will deny GSL's motion for leave to amend its answer to add counterclaims.

 

I can just visualize the judge welcoming counsel back into his court room.  GS's counsel is James Grogan

"Mr. Grogan , it is a pleasure to see you back again....again"

5a1c4fd3166e6_Jeffrey_Alker_Meyer_professor_of_Law_a-Article-201607261908.jpg.17f7aab2067e15830ddba945e60c407c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 JAM seems like a really smart and younger judge.  So the case will get a careful and thoughtful hearing.

Frankly it is a waste of taxpayers money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill was about.  Food poisoning?  The victim was too sick from E. coli and salmonella to file suit in a timely manner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, torrid said:

I wonder what Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill was about.  Food poisoning?  The victim was too sick from E. coli and salmonella to file suit in a timely manner?

It was actually a class action lawsuit about whether management trainees - called "apprentices" by the employer - were exempt or non-exempt workers. The case hinged on whether the class was really a class or not, and the court decided it was not a class. Is this an omen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tillerman said:

It was actually a class action lawsuit about whether management trainees - called "apprentices" by the employer - were exempt or non-exempt workers. The case hinged on whether the class was really a class or not, and the court decided it was not a class. Is this an omen?

LOL.  Tillerson strikes again!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wavedancer II said:

LP will have to defend itself in other ways as well:

The (One Person Dinghy)  Olympic events will be reviewed according to World Sailing's Antitrust Policy.

 



 

And this part of the WS Antitrust Policy may give LP some difficulties...

  1. 2.5.2  Via its contracts with Olympic Classes and their manufacturers, World Sailing monitors production quality and prices of manufacturers, in particular sole manufacturers, to ensure that the supplier(s) is satisfying demand at acceptable quality and service levels. In the event of a breach of the contracts (e.g. consistent failure by the supplier to maintain acceptable quality and service levels), World Sailing has the right to require re-tendering for the production of equipment of the Class. 

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tillerman said:

And this part of the WS Antitrust Policy may give LP some difficulties...

  1. 2.5.2  Via its contracts with Olympic Classes and their manufacturers, World Sailing monitors production quality and prices of manufacturers, in particular sole manufacturers, to ensure that the supplier(s) is satisfying demand at acceptable quality and service levels. In the event of a breach of the contracts (e.g. consistent failure by the supplier to maintain acceptable quality and service levels), World Sailing has the right to require re-tendering for the production of equipment of the Class. 

     

There's a bit to unpack there. It infers that World Sailing (WS) has contracts with Olympic Class associations and with manufacturers of equipment for Olympic Classes. Presumably the contracts are only in regard to supply of equipment for WS events.

As far as I'm aware (which isn't saying much I guess), WS can't change who is allowed to produce Laser equipment under various licencing deals, so they'd have to work with  existing manufacturers. If a particular manufacturer is found to be in breach of their obligations, WS's can either:

  1. Source equipment from another manufacturer, or
  2. Change to another class that meets WS's rules 

Option 1 may well breech commercial licencing agreements that restrict who can supply equipment in particular geographic regions. Likely WS has no control over these agreements and any breech would very likely end up in a court somewhere. Alternatively, they could only hold events in regions where their favoured manufacturers have supply rights, but that might open an even larger can of worms and punishes 3rd parties that have nothing to do with the original complaint.

Option 2 seems to punish compliant manufacturers, so possibly not politically acceptable. It would also hurt Olympic Laser hopefuls, but that's likely a minor consideration given the changes to sailing classes in the last few Olympics.

A 3rd option is that WS may have agreements to source equipment from whichever manufacturer they wish regardless of regional licencing deals. For the sake of the Laser Class and compliant manufacturers, I hope that's the case. But there may be a few wannabe Olympic Classes that are hoping otherwise.

In the bigger picture, there is also the relationship between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and WS. A manufacturer that is unhappy with WS may well appeal directly to the IOC, possibly affecting all Olympic Classes in the process.

Fun times ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents.

This isn't about finding a replacement builder for Lasers to use in the Olympics, but a replacement class for the single-handed events.  I was never a fan of the Laser being an Olympic class to start with, but now I wonder what will happen to the class if it is dropped.

I don't imagine the IOC giving two shits about how WS conducts the Olympic sailing events as long as the go off without a hitch, on budget, with increased female and smaller country representation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snipped below from Tillerman's post in the "Huh? New Sunfish Class?" blog. Seems to me Bruce Kirby lives in Rowayton. Looks like that is a couple miles away from the new shop. You don't suppose LP knew this...

New SailLaser Center Planned for SONO district of Norwalk, Connecticut

LaserPerformance is pleased to announce it will be opening a SailLaser Center in the SONO district of Norwalk, Connecticut. The Center will reach out to the southern Connecticut community to help make sailing as easy and enjoyable as possible regardless of means or ability. Sailing lessons will be offered for all skill levels and, for more experienced sailors, rigged dinghy boats will be available for rent or seasonal lease. Summer fun activities are planned for children, while families will be invited to participate in regattas and social events. Those interested in improving the environment in their community will be encouraged to join one of our LaserPerformance Handprint initiatives to keep our water and environment sustainable. Finally, the SailLaser Center will provide maintenance services for dinghy boats, as well as offer a wide range of LaserPerformance boats, parts and accessories which can presently be viewed and purchased at www.LaserPerformance.com. The SailLaser Center will welcome the community commencing May 2018 at 10 Marshall Street, South Norwalk, CT.

 

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bill4 said:

Snipped below from Tillerman's post in the "Huh? New Sunfish Class?" blog. Seems to me Bruce Kirby lives in Rowayton. Looks like that is a couple miles away from the new shop. I wonder if LP knew this?

New SailLaser Center Planned for SONO district of Norwalk, Connecticut

LaserPerformance is pleased to announce it will be opening a SailLaser Center in the SONO district of Norwalk, Connecticut. The Center will reach out to the southern Connecticut community to help make sailing as easy and enjoyable as possible regardless of means or ability. Sailing lessons will be offered for all skill levels and, for more experienced sailors, rigged dinghy boats will be available for rent or seasonal lease. Summer fun activities are planned for children, while families will be invited to participate in regattas and social events. Those interested in improving the environment in their community will be encouraged to join one of our LaserPerformance Handprint initiatives to keep our water and environment sustainable. Finally, the SailLaser Center will provide maintenance services for dinghy boats, as well as offer a wide range of LaserPerformance boats, parts and accessories which can presently be viewed and purchased at www.LaserPerformance.com. The SailLaser Center will welcome the community commencing May 2018 at 10 Marshall Street, South Norwalk, CT.
 

 

Probably more significant that the offices of LaserPerformance and Dory Ventures are in Norwalk.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at Google maps, 10 Marshall Street is a building that is a couple blocks from the water but doesn't look too convenient for boat launching.  It does say "Maclaren" on the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tillerman said:

 

Probably more significant that the offices of LaserPerformance and Dory Ventures are in Norwalk.
 

Damn. That's no fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bill4 said:

. Seems to me Bruce Kirby lives in Rowayton. Looks like that is a couple miles away from the new shop. You don't suppose LP knew this...

 

LP is headquartered in Norwalk. Rowayton is the upmarket suburb of Norwalk.

Its reasonably well known in CT that Bruce Kirby and Bill Crane are both members of the same yacht club, race Sonars against each other, and have known each other for decades. 

It is said that all business matters stop at the YC gate.

I think Rastegar also lives in Rowayton but I dont  believe that he was invited to join the club.:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tillerman said:

Championships like this are one of the best things about the Laser Class.

True that. I would not have raced the boat in 3 years and my rotator cuff surgery PT literally ends that date... but I am giving that some serious thought. Anybody want to gramps sit so I can go, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Wess said:

True that. I would not have raced the boat in 3 years and my rotator cuff surgery PT literally ends that date... but I am giving that some serious thought. Anybody want to gramps sit so I can go, LOL.

But then there also this...

https://www.rsaerosailing.org/index.asp?p=event&eid=1544

at the same location as the Worlds in December 2019.

I really enjoyed the 2008 Laser Masters Worlds in 2008 at Terrigal and this is just up the coast from there.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tillerman said:

But then there also this...

https://www.rsaerosailing.org/index.asp?p=event&eid=1544

at the same location as the Worlds in December 2019.

I really enjoyed the 2008 Laser Masters Worlds in 2008 at Terrigal and this is just up the coast from there.
 

What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, VWAP said:

What's your point?

Well I think @tillerman's first point is, as he wrote, regattas like the one you linked are one of the best things about the Laser class. His second point seems to be that the Aero class is growing and also hosting regatta at some pretty cool places.  Pretty reasonable and not exactly radical stuff there and it seems odd to go on tilt over it.

I am more a Laser than Aero fan but if you are going to travel, both fleets have some interesting regatta options. I happen to be more swayed by what's happening at a grass roots level and the local scene where Laser still wins big (at least for me locally and I would guess for most).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now