Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Carrera GT]

...asks the Court "to determine, amongst other things"...that is absolutely worded most "Perfectly".
The Court at this time, I believe, is the Judge who has followed this all along. His continued legal perspective and prior rulings will be quite interesting to follow now in this matter.

Michael Doyle

[Bill Sampson]

Links to the motion. If the links don't work, you'll need to go to the Franklin County Ohio clerk's web site:

http://www.franklincountyohio.gov/clerk/cio.cfm

Heinrichs v 356 Registry documents:

http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/caseSearch?4pTuWqf0sPKJ0rABpbIa

Summary judgment motion:

http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/imageLinkProcessor.pdf?coords=THrCR62E1MALc%2FUMQn 8wtsYGg86aKhiWcWIl%2B8XcEylJFSpqYrOvz0f2tKJfK%2FuJ NI5z%2F4e0rVi9IRzLDu26Z5K%2FsyT6AaVKXylJRWBoLlFRZW w9AOYbkbdgIXrfBeUPCaC01qy%2BAXKaOjYednGty29qYxosMV PU4glVC6oYsZU%3D

The links work for me, but, the court clerk has a log-in process that might make them fail for you.

[Jack Staggs]

Thank you for the links once again. I have read them and a couple of questions come to mind. About how long could it take to get a ruling on the motion? Would a ruling typically have a determination of the court to as to yes or no answers to all of the requests included in the motion, or just a ruling as to whether or not the court will approve the motion for summary judgment, with the ruling of the contents coming in the future? Are any of these rulings subject to appeal from either side? If the court finds in favor of the contents of the motion, are the rulings enforceable in any certain time frame? Inquiring pedants want to know.

[Bill Sampson]

Thank you for the links once again. I have read them and a couple of questions come to mind. About how long could it take to get a ruling on the motion? Would a ruling typically have a determination of the court to as to yes or no answers to all of the requests included in the motion, or just a ruling as to whether or not the court will approve the motion for summary judgment, with the ruling of the contents coming in the future? Are any of these rulings subject to appeal from either side? If the court finds in favor of the contents of the motion, are the rulings enforceable in any certain time frame? Inquiring pedants want to know.

1. How long to get a ruling? I don't know, but, the R will have the period set by Ohio law to respond (guess 30 to 60 days) and then H will have time to replay (guess up to 30 days). I don't know if the court will schedule oral argument or not. The court did schedule 9/19/2014 as the date for decisions on dispositive motions (such as this one). That date is a little odd since according to the CASE SCHEDULE on the court's web page the cutoff appears to be later, 9/25/2014, but, I have misplaced my black bathrobe so won't guess on the scheduling.

2. Will a court typically answer the specific questions presented by the motion or just grant or deny the motion for summary judgment? Again, I practice in California and the procedure is pretty clearly (to me anyway) different in Ohio. However, H has asked for a complete resolution of Count One which would require, I think, the court to answer the first three of the four questions in the INTRODUCTION section of the motion (page 2 of that motion) YES. If the court does so I would expect it to rule Count One completely resolved. That count involves how to interpret Section 1702.15 of Ohio Revised Statutes and the rights of a member of a non-profit (the R for example) to review/inspect/copy the records of the member's club. Question 4 of the 4 in the Introduction to H's motion applies to Count Two only I would think. If the court answers YES to that question, H will be entitled to a partial summary judgment that the trustees breached their fiduciary obligations to him (and to all members?) by refusing to honor their obligations under section 1702.15 AND, as to H, retaliating against him by purporting to terminate his membership.

I was dead wrong on the appealability of the discovery orders which turned out, under Ohio law, to be appealable with the appellate courts unanimously then ruling that the R could appeal but it lost its appeal. So, my opinion is suspect on whether rulings on the current motion can be appealed. Nevertheless, if H wins on Count One, he will eventually have judgment in his favor in accord with that ruling and THAT judgment may then be appealed. If H loses on Count One, the matter would then proceed to trial, probably, although I would expect a loss by H on the motion to effectively mean that Count One would be a "win" for the R and that a judgment ultimately would be entered accordingly. As to the Count TWO part of the motion, a ruling in favor of H would also be a finding that the R has breached its fiduciary obligations to ALL R members, presumably including even me from when I was a member, so, my bias would be showing here. A ruling against H on that part would most likely simply leave the matter to be tried in full.

I would think both sides (and the goal of judicial economy) would be better served by awaiting final judgment as to all issues, whether obtained by motion or by full trial, before appealing the matter.

3. Would a ruling on the motion be enforceable in a certain time frame? Only a judgment on the ruling, which might not be immediate, would be enforceable, and then an appeal might delay enforcement. My best semi-educated guess would be that a ruling favorable to H and his fellow members on Count One would NOT result in a final judgment until the case is fully resolved at the trial level.

Just because "it's only a car club" doesn't mean the issues are simple. The "cookbook" that lawyers (and judges) use in CA with regard to summary judgments is more than 160 pages and presumably some of those folks know already what they are doing.

Jack - I may have provided more obscurity than light. If so, give me a call.


Bill

[Bill Sampson]

Today, July 21, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed, upon the defendants' motion, the case filed in federal court. For details, go to http://www.pacer.gov/ where you'll need to open an account which will cost you nothing unless you become a heavy user.

[Jack Staggs]

Oh, man... I have forgotten who the defendant is on this one. Help a guy out here. I don't really want to open a Pacer acct. Was it dismissed as being without merit?

[Bill Sampson]

Oh, man... I have forgotten who the defendant is on this one. Help a guy out here. I don't really want to open a Pacer acct. Was it dismissed as being without merit?

The easy and quick answer to your question is "NO." See below for a more nuanced response if you maintain headache remedies in the toolbox or refrigerator in your shop or if you suffer insomnia.

The defendants are a number of past and present 356 Registry trustees and officers, sued as individuals. The main thrust of their motion was procedural, lack of personal jurisdiction in that the court believed the defendants' assertions that they had insufficient contacts with the forum state (Ohio). The Registry, incorporated in Ohio, is not a defendant in the federal case. The court also granted the defense motion to dismiss the RICO claim on the basis that the facts pleaded would, if proved, not entitle the plaintiff, Steve Heinrichs, to recover on that theory. That is "sort of" a partial determination on the merits on that particular claim although I am demonstrating rather conclusively my lack of familiarity with federal procedural practice here.

The merits of the allegations in the federal complaint as to fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with business relationship have not been determined in the federal case meaning that, in theory, Heinrichs could sue each individual defendant in whatever jurisdiction with which that particular defendant has sufficient personal contact. For example, defendants House, Liberty, Macaluso, Garretson and Campbell all live in California and most likely have performed acts on behalf of the Registry in that state meaning, in theory, that granting of the motion would leave Heinrichs to pursue his remedies, if any, against those defendants in that state. Although defendant Skirmants stated under oath that he is a resident of California it is unlikely that any state other than Michigan, where he in fact resides, would have jurisdiction. Defendant Maltby could, in theory, be sued on the remaining grounds of the federal complaint in Minnesota. And so on.

Although my crystal ball has been malfunctioning for some time, it is unlikely that Heinrichs will further pursue an appeal or actions in other venues but that is up to him.

[Bill Sampson]

In the Ohio STATE court action the Trustees have now filed their opposition to Heinrichs's motion for summary judgment. The opposition is 74 pages of easy reading for those interested. If Ohio procedural rules mimic CA rules Heinrichs will have an opportunity to file a reply memorandum in support of his motion and the court will then rule on the motion.

The trustees have filed their motion in STATE court seeking to compel Heinrichs to furnish discovery it is claimed he failed to provide. Heinrichs has the right to oppose the motion but has not filed opposition yet. Stay tuned.

[RT]

IF Ohio's system is like California's, Heinrichs should make a motion for Terminating Sanctions for failure to comply with discovery rulings.

See more on that here: California Freelance Paralegal Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

Perhaps someone might suggest this to Heinrichs' counsel!

[Bill Sampson]

On September 24, 2014 the trial court in Ohio state court entered two orders that might be of interest to 356 Registry club members and others. The notices of decision are posted on the court's web site which if you haven't used it before you can click through here: http://www.franklincountyohio.gov/clerk/cio.cfm. The rulings are, naturally, what count, not my summary.

The court partially granted Heinrichs's motion for summary judgment. The court validated his claim in Count One that he (and presumably any member) is entitled to those records - see the opinion itself for a more detailed discussion. The court makes a detailed analysis in the ruling but a "snip" of the bottom line follows.



The court found that there are some triable issues of fact as to Count Two, although it found conclusively, without the need for trial, that Steve Heinrichs was wrongfully expelled by the trustees, thus granting his motion in part as to Count Two. The defendant club, due to what the court has held were the wrongful actions of its trustees, will be liable for damages that Heinrichs can prove were caused by that wrongful expulsion.



The other motion, which was granted in large part as stated by the court, was the trustees' motion to compel discovery from Steve Heinrichs. The order does not lend itself to "snipping" as readily as the other order does so the holding is summarized as follows. The order compels Heinrichs to produce: 1. Heinrichs's financial records pertaining to two books on Porsche; 2. Heinrichs's correspondence, if any, with Wolfgang Porsche that refers to the R or its officers/trustees; 3. Correspondence with Bill Sampson, to be produced in camera for the court's inspection; 4. Correspondence to/from R members referring to trustee elections or candidates. Read the decision itself if you are interested in the court's reasoning and further details as to its rulings.

[Steve Heinrichs]

ABCGT folks and Registry folks who are here from time to time:

It has been quite some time since I have commented on this thread. That has been true for a number of reasons. Of course, the litigation was proceeding (and still does but is rather at a different point), I've both been completing the book and awaiting its distribution (which is now proceeding albeit slowly) and since April this year, I have been dealing with serious health issues (in that regard important activity takes place early next week before friends help with filling book orders---assuming the books arrive).

I am breaking that silence now largely because of recent Registry Forum postings, specifically as to comments regarding the Registry membership list and why it was requested.

Some nearly 70 years ago, the notion that if one told a big enough lie over and over again, the public would believe it.

Part of the current problem that allows the recent postings to be even considered is that many and especially newer members there have not really read the litigation material or--quite understandably--not spent time following the various actions.

Here is where we are regarding the "Membership List":

1) First, the purpose of asking for it was never to sell anything--books or otherwise. Nor---the other red herring--was it to find out who owned what car. Simply said, I wanted the ability to reach out to the membership to read/see the issues and situation as I see it.

2)As a part of discovery and after appeals by the Registry even to the Ohio Supreme Court---the list and other material was produced to my attorney. I had previously instructed my attorney to NOT provide it to me. So---I have not and will not see it.

3)Not so long ago, the Court ruled, among other things, that I was entitled to the list and that it could be used for business purposes. Nevertheless, should I use the list to inform the membership, it wil be done through an independent third party in a manner that will not enable me to access all or any part of the list.

4) I am not certain exactly what will happen in terms of the litigation or settlement efforts, but all Registry members will eventually find out the story of what has happened and what (at least in my view) the facts are. Maybe next month, maybe next year...but the truth will out.

5) Last, I now have every expectation based upon prior history, that my words here will be somehow edited and take out of context and posted over there and severely criticized. Whatever.

Back to books and health---(in reverse order)

Steve Heinrichs

[bbspdstr]

Steve,

If ever there was an appropriate word now for describing the Registry, it's "whatever."

If there are a dozen vocal anti-authors over there on the Forum, there are quiet thousands who will appreciate and purchase your books. The surrogates for the members in charge of all the fuss are making all the fuss about your book(s) (and you) and yet a few realists are trying to counter. That's a real "whatever."

"They" are trying to obfuscate the legal matters you engaged by demanding that the talk be all about the cars...when your books ARE all about the cars.

There should have never been a need for any legal process, anyway. It's very good that you explained to anyone who reads here that it was NOT "too sell books" for which you wanted a membership list, as apologists for the governing body want all to believe was your intent.

It's been a shame that the most venomous detractors don't really know the reasons behind the suits and assume such actions need to be personalized by the peanut gallery. "KTF" is assumed to be a blind faith that's kept? Another "whatever."

It is ignorance and propaganda at work, as you say, or ignorance and a magazine. A real car club would just have fixed certain issues (pun intended) or negotiated a way through those other issues and moved forward. The building frustration of watching this degradation of the group I've paid dues to for 40 years has lead to the 'fun' being gone from the Registry for me, but I am sincerely looking forward to the fun of factual discovery when reading your latest book as much as I do the limited involvement I have here on Justin's site.

Best wishes for renewed health and a long future of dedication to the Porsche brand...and perhaps another book!

-Bruce Baker

[356JAGER]

Steve,
Thanks again for clarifying the situation and shining a light on the outright lies repeatedly told by the parrot like defenders of the indefensible on 356 Squawk. All best wishes for your success on all fronts.
Joel

[Jack Staggs]

I would like to take a moment to congratulate the majority of members of this forum for restraint by not using idioms and innuendo in this controversial topic in the past few months. Recently there have been some remarks on the 356 Registry that may or may not reflect on the ideology of that club or the majority of it's members. I find comments such as those on both sides to be unnecessary and detrimental to the 356 world. It is likely that more than a few folks will be alienated to both camps with this type of dialoge, more often than not, younger enthusiasts. Who could blame them? To be certain, the 356 Registry has enriched our experience with these cars. No one can take that away. Many members of that club are satisfied with the way the club is operated. Others not so much. More than a few post on several forums and express their opinions in acceptable ways. It's not that different on how we agree or disagree on how our government works. It's a community, folks. Let's give our best effort to take the high road on this.

[S.J.Szabo]