Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 8890252" data-attributes="member: 20741">Firstly, I'm a Canadian lawyer (Ontario). While I have appeared pro hac vice in American courts, I'm not an American lawyer; all true.That said, if you re looking for an injunction such as this, ordinarily, that would be under your Rule 65 in Federal Court, right? I assume that this injunction sought is ultimately permanent and therefore equity is engaged.  All three parts of that test are normally applied, (as is a broader public interest, for that matter)I have previously mentioned undertaking in damages  re security bond if you win the prelim injunction. That's not at issue. WotC can satisfy that.If you are saying that there is some circuit in the US Federal Court that ignores the process as typically proceeds under Rule 65 in Federal Courts of NY and Michigan? Fine. You are a little late to be jumping in - if you have an opinion on where an injunction is easy to get on these facts (and which would allow WotC to avoids the submission of highly inconvenient evidence) I'd love to hear it.  Enlighten us.Summary judgment gets us to the same place, but as to availability of summary judgment in any American jurisdiction - I do not express any opinion; I'm not an American lawyer. Typically, that doesn't tend to fly in cases where credibility might be in issue (and it might be here, depending on) but that whole aspect of the law was until recently, an often moving target in Canada. Assuming it was available, you are still down to the merits and the evidence. And none of that evidence is great for WotC. Do you disagree?</blockquote>

Verification