Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Bill Sampson]

[jstenner]

-----

[356JAGER]

Sebastian Gaeta
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit UpdatePostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:33 pm
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:50 pm
Posts: 1273
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Hi Joel, you are correct I probably should have put the entire quote here. That does not change the fact however that you did withdraw your support from the other side. I found that to be quite interesting as you are very passionate person, I've always read your posts and felt that you have a point of view of things that not everybody has. I for one do look at both sides and form my opinions by doing so.

The simple fact is I was curious as to why you withdrew your support from the plaintiffs side, nothing more nothing less.

Best regards,

_________________
Sebastian Gaeta
Registry #8339
'65 C coupe
'64 C cab

Sebastian,
My reasons for ending my ACTIVE support for the suit are personal and won't be discussed. I fully support Steve's position and effort.
Clear enough ? What you and many others over there don't seem to grasp, is that your 'leadership' is destroying the club they lead.
If you really care about the club, encourage them to step aside, or
vote them out before all the club's resources are devoured by their behaviors. That's all, my garage, cars and engine rebuild are calling me.

[Bill Sampson]

Oh, but Bill....it's almost Christmas [insert whiny voice]

Not another lump of coal for me??!!???

[Bill Sampson]

On December 13, 2013 the defendant trustees/officers filed their reply memorandum in connection with their motion to dismiss the federal case. The document is public record available at PACER a document retrieval service supplied by the federal judiciary at nominal cost although you'll need to establish an account.

I've attached a copy here

[Steve Heinrichs]

All, as we approach the end of the year, I wanted to provide a status report on the litigation.

Little has changed.

We await the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court as to whether the Registry must comply with discovery requests. The Registry appealed the trial court's decision to the Appeals Court which agreed with the trial court. The Appeals Court agreed with the trial court and the Registry then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The federal court has received a motion to dismiss by the defendants and the court has received our response. Recently, there was a meeting with the court in which both sides participated, for the purpose of scheduling. The federal court will decide if the litigation will proceed and there could be other actions.

Meanwhile---about two months ago (I forget the exact timing) I made a comprehensive proposal to settle all of the litigation. While the offer remains open, neither the Registry nor the individual defendants have either suggested any discussion nor have they acknowledged the offer directly or through their lawyers.

All of the filings and the settlement proposal are posted or linked on this thread and on the Registry Forum should you wish to read them.

I wish you all the best for the New Year and hope for an outcome for the Registry that enhances the stature of our club.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

Thanks Steve:

I'm probably a little more familiar with litigation and its protocols than many of you reading here. All should know that it is a rare litigant who keeps an "ignored" settlement offer open as Steve has. It is particularly generous of him since in the court fight, at least in state court in Ohio, he is well ahead on points with the trustees, based upon present rulings, having to divulge full member records because of their own intransigence. Steve has offered to rescue them from their own folly - they have ignored him.

Sadly, "ignore" is the official, apparently unanimous, decision of the Trustees, at least according to the continued postings of Trustee Liberty. Sadly, he wants in the worst way to be president. Leaders do NOT ignore any of their constituents, regardless of disagreements, but, he makes that policy, with, according to him, the approval of his cohort.

"Lead, follow or get out of the way" - Jim Liberty on the R forum recently. "Ignore" - Mr. Liberty on the same thread. Ignoring is none of those things so, please, trustees, show some leadership for a change and resolve what are, in reality, simple issues in the running of a car club. All you have to do is treat all of your fellow members like they actually belong to a genuine club and a resolution will be easy.

[Bill Sampson]

This morning, February 19, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court posted on its web site that it had declined to assume jurisdiction of the Registry's appeal of the trial court's discovery order. This means, unless the R contests the matter further - the US Supreme Court would seem to be the last venue - the Registry will have to comply with the discovery orders in existence and finally answer, under oath, some questions as to what they have been doing.


The pdf of the very brief decision is here:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=197867.pdf

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

I wanted to let you know that my offer of settlement as to the Registry legal matters (which was made 7 November, posted here and on the R Forum but never acknowledged despite it having gone formally to Registry counsel) was formally withdrawn about an hour ago.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

The Registry Trustees have made a considerable fuss over their purported desire to protect member records. A request for those records was included among 27 other items requested by Heinrichs (minutes, check register(s), ledgers, etc.). The offer to which he refers included withdrawing the request for member records in exchange for expediting proceedings. The Trustees blew him off - they made no response.

Stay tuned for the Trustees' explanation(s) (if they even make one) to the membership as to why they chose further delay and obstruction at the risk of supposedly sacrosanct member information instead of accepting a that offer.

I am referring above, strictly to the state court case against the Registry (and its counterclaim against Steve Heinrichs) and not to the federal case of Heinrichs against officers and trustees.

[Losthillsguy]

So what's next? Is there a time frame for an appeal to the US Supreme Court? If they don't appeal and it goes back to the Ohio court how does their order get enforced?

Are the police going to knock on Georges door and ask for the papers?

[Bill Sampson]

So what's next? Is there a time frame for an appeal to the US Supreme Court?

I don't know the time for the Ohio Supreme Court decision to become final. During that time (30 days????) I believe the Registry can either accept the decision or petition the US Supreme Court for a hearing - more delay. The US Supreme Court most likely has better things to do and would, as permitted by the discretion vested in it, choose not to hear the matter and let the earlier rulings stand. Eleven different judges have now told the trustees they are wrong on the issue they are appealing.

If they don't appeal and it goes back to the Ohio court how does their order get enforced?

If the trustees choose to defy the court's ruling Heinrichs would have to file a motion or motions for contempt in the trial court seeking enforcement of its own order. The court could order a number of remedies, up to simply entering judgment for Heinrichs. Not likely and a long way off.

Are the police going to knock on Georges door and ask for the papers?

If the trustees force the court to hold them in contempt that is a possible remedy. A long way off and not likely. Defying court orders is not a smart thing to do. Judges ultimately CAN send a guy with a gun out to enforce their orders. The closest I've come in 38 years of civil practice was a judge calling a doctor under subpoena in a civil case and telling him he could either show up on his own in an hour or be accompanied, attired in jail jump suit and shackles, by the sheriff being dispatched that minute. NOT LIKELY to occur here although I like the visual.

[Jack Staggs]

"The court could order a number of remedies, up to simply entering judgment for Heinrichs."
If the above were to happen, what would Mr Heinrichs be awarded/receive? Thank you for keeping the 356 community appraised of developments in this case.

[Bill Sampson]

You're welcome Jack. The prayer of the amended complaint filed by Heinrichs sets out the relief he was seeking. You can see it on the Franklin county Ohio clerk's web page. I'll summarize what he'd get:
1. Copies of books and records, both for himself PLUS a declaration that members were entitled to those items - recall that he filed on behalf of himself AND the membership to establish those rights
2. Attorney fees
3. Reinstatment of his membership
4. Damages
5. Court costs and attorney fees
6. For other relief the court deems proper

He'd probably also get the personal counterclaim/suit filed AGAINST him by the Registry dismissed.

It's very unlikely to get to a judgment like that by default but it would not surprise me if such a judgment were entered on the merits of the case - especially on items 1-3 which, judging from the settlement overtures Heinrichs made (and which were ignored by the Trustees) are what are important to him.

[Jack Staggs]

Bill, thank you for your response to my queries. Your reply causes me to beg you an answer to yet another question. I have a passing interest in some of the finer points of law, as I considered a a career in that field until I found my right mind (and saved my life). I am not a 356 Registry member, so I am not allowed to post on their forum (or give free advice unless I pay for the privilege to do so), however I do refer to their site from time to time. I recently saw a post by Rosemary giving a link to: http://tinyurl.com/mlb36qj On the link I read on page 5 "...if he were a member, he would have the right to examine the books and records, not receive copies." Your previous post here said that Mr Heinrichs could receive "1. Copies of books and records,..." Could you clarify?
Thanks,
Jack