356 Registry Lawsuit Update

For off-topic posts only (i.e. non 356 related content). No politics, religion or obscenity. Play nice!
Locked
Message
Author
Rosemary Sampson

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#331 Post by Rosemary Sampson »

Thank you Mr. Murray and Mr. Henning for your customary scrupulous observance of our club's prohibitions against personal attacks on your fellow members.
C J Murray wrote:I do not think that personal attacks should be allowed . . . . . . . . .
I suppose I should follow a trustee's advice with regard to these constant personal attacks on me but I am simply sick of them and am publicly asking the trustees to halt them.
Jim Liberty wrote:IGNORE, is the key word. .............. Jim
Given the proximity of the trial and the relative lack of importance of the rulings issued February 17, 2015 both of us had decided not to post anything anywhere, particularly since, as the court observed in one of its rulings, such rulings on motions in limine are interlocutory (not conclusive) only. The rulings are relatively unimportant because as reported previously the bulk of the issues that are important to us in the lawsuit have already been conclusively resolved in favor of Heinrichs and against the ill-considered positions of past Registry boards.

Bill posted on abcgt at the specific request of a 356 organization leader who, to avoid the sorts of scurrilous remarks I endure, will not be identified further. For anyone interested, here is the entire quote minus "signatures" from the abcgt forum. We do recommend that forum - Justin Rio has done a great job for us 356 lovers.
Bill Sampson wrote: The Ohio state court made several rulings on February 17, 2015. I'll give a brief outline. I may not have time for much or any expansion on these topics. All will affect the trial somewhat but none will determine the outcome. The outcome has already been determined to a large extent in favor of plaintiff Steve Heinrichs as discussed here previously at considerable length.

Rulings follow with brief discussion if merited (my opinion of course)
1. The Registry filed a motion on 10/15/2014 to hold Heinrichs in contempt since he did not appear for one court hearing when George Dunn did and since he purportedly did not make discovery. The court granted the motion compelling discovery and payment of $1000 in sanctions.

2. The court denied plaintiff's motion filed 11/25/2014 for re-consideration of the court's prior ruling to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness Nesser. Mr. Nesser will be prevented from testifying.

3. Previously (11/19/2014) the court had granted two of the Registry's motions in limine. Plaintiff Heinrichs asked for re-consideration. The motion to re-consider was denied thus leaving the earlier rulings in force. Part of this ruling prevents Nesser's testimony and part prevents plaintiff from inquiring of the Registry why he has not been reinstated. You may recall that the court has previously ruled, which ruling stands, that Heinrichs was wrongfully expelled from membership in the Registry. It appears he is entitled to claim damages for that wrongful expulsion.

4. The next two rulings pertain to motions also filed by plaintiff and the rulings deny use of Nesser's testimony and of questions regarding plaintiff's rights to reinstatement

5. The court denied plaintiff's request for sanctions for the Registry's frivolous appeals from the orders compelling the Registry to make discovery. There was considerable discussion of those appeals earlier. Although the Registry wrongfully failed to make discovery the trial court did not impose sanctions.

6. The court ruled that neither the undersigned nor Dominic Chieffo may be called as witnesses. Both of us had been listed tentatively as witnesses the plaintiff might call at trial.

7. Finally the court denied the plaintiff's supplemental motion for a finding of contempt regarding the Registry's failure to make discovery.

The rulings are unlikely to be outcome determinative although some evidence that one or the other party might desire to bolster his or its case [will be excluded].

Trial remains set for April 6, 2015 as to any remaining issues. Stay tuned.

User avatar
C J Murray
356 Fan
Posts: 9158
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: 30MI WEST OF PHILA
Contact:

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#332 Post by C J Murray »

There were no personal attacks by me.
'57 Speedster
'59 Sunroof
'60 Devin D Porsche Race Car
'63 Cabriolet "Norm"
'67 911 S Original Owner
'03 Ferrari 575M
'09 Smart Passion

Rosemary Sampson

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#333 Post by Rosemary Sampson »

A settlement proposal by Steve Heinrichs and its rejection by the trustees are here:
http://www.abcgt.com/forum/13-Open-Topi ... html#25761

A response to the rejection letter by Heinrichs is here:
http://www.abcgt.com/forum/13-Open-Topi ... html#25803

Rosemary Sampson

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#334 Post by Rosemary Sampson »

On March 18, 2015 plaintiff Steve Heinrichs submitted his dismissal of counts 2 and 3 of his complaint. He also filed his motion asking the court to make final its earlier summary judgment ruling in his favor requiring Registry transparency as he sought in Count One. Simply put: He won (and so, actually, did we members as the rights he established include all of us). Transparency and open governance, absent until suit was filed, have now prevailed as have the wrongfully expelled Steve Heinrichs and all members.

User avatar
Vic Skirmants
Registry Hall of Fame
Posts: 9276
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Contact:

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#335 Post by Vic Skirmants »

Rosie, you are so full of it.

Charm, that is.
Last edited by Vic Skirmants on Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
C J Murray
356 Fan
Posts: 9158
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: 30MI WEST OF PHILA
Contact:

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#336 Post by C J Murray »

Rosemary Sampson wrote:On March 18, 2015 plaintiff Steve Heinrichs submitted his dismissal of counts 2 and 3 of his complaint.
So he got tired of paying the lawyers to pursue his frivolous suits when even he realized that he was loosing. He started with something like 13 suits and won one?! Hopefully that decision will be overturned on appeal if it is made final. I guess that is the one that gave him our personal records and I would surely like to see that one reversed. The only winner is Mercedes who is selling new cars to the lawyers.

And ditto to what Vic said. Thank you for your service to the Registry Vic! :D
'57 Speedster
'59 Sunroof
'60 Devin D Porsche Race Car
'63 Cabriolet "Norm"
'67 911 S Original Owner
'03 Ferrari 575M
'09 Smart Passion

User avatar
Emil Wojcik
356 Fan
Posts: 1521
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:20 pm
Location: Metuchen, NJ

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#337 Post by Emil Wojcik »

Vic Skirmants wrote:Rosie, you are so full of it.
Thank you, Vic, for your very insightful words.
Emil Wojcik
'64 356C Euro coupe
'78 MGB
'86 Jaguar XJ6 Series 3
'94 MB E420

User avatar
George Walling
356 Fan
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 1:01 pm
Location: Merrill, Southern Oregon

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#338 Post by George Walling »

Great comment Vic and also great observation made by you C.J.

George
George E Walling

User avatar
Charlie White
356 Fan
Posts: 3143
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:12 pm

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#339 Post by Charlie White »

Ditto George and Emil's comments.

CW
Charlie White

Mike Ruddy
356 Fan
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:07 am
Tag: https://tinyurl.com/yw3jedrh
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#340 Post by Mike Ruddy »

Rosemary Sampson wrote: Simply put: He won.
Can you offer a brief synopsis of what Mr Heinrichs has actually won ?

This is a serious request. The court case has been running for some considerable time and I have on occasion lost concentration. Has Mr Heinrichs won the right to be reinstated as a member ? Are the Trustee election procedures to be revised as he requested ? Will George Dunn have to write to Mr Heinrichs thanking him for his efforts in moving the club towards transparency in compliance with its obligations under Ohio Rev. Code chapter 1702 as requested ?

User avatar
Gordon Maltby
Registry Hall of Fame
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Twin cities
Contact:

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#341 Post by Gordon Maltby »

Mike Ruddy wrote:
Rosemary Sampson wrote: Simply put: He won.
Can you offer a brief synopsis of what Mr Heinrichs has actually won ?
This is a serious request. The court case has been running for some considerable time and I have on occasion lost concentration. Has Mr Heinrichs won the right to be reinstated as a member ? Are the Trustee election procedures to be revised as he requested ? Will George Dunn have to write to Mr Heinrichs thanking him for his efforts in moving the club towards transparency in compliance with its obligations under Ohio Rev. Code chapter 1702 as requested ?

Mike, since I started this thread I thought I should reply to your thoughtful question. From what I know as of now, the answers are as follows (simply put, as our legal-type friends like to say):
No to each of your questions.
 

Mike Ruddy
356 Fan
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:07 am
Tag: https://tinyurl.com/yw3jedrh
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#342 Post by Mike Ruddy »

Thankyou Gordon.

User avatar
C J Murray
356 Fan
Posts: 9158
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: 30MI WEST OF PHILA
Contact:

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#343 Post by C J Murray »

Hi Gordon,
To date, what has been the financial impact to the Registry/trustees/members/us caused by these lawsuits? I believe we were dropped by our insurance carrier so how much more do we now pay to our current insurance company as a high risk customer?
Thanks,
Cliff
Last edited by C J Murray on Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
'57 Speedster
'59 Sunroof
'60 Devin D Porsche Race Car
'63 Cabriolet "Norm"
'67 911 S Original Owner
'03 Ferrari 575M
'09 Smart Passion

User avatar
Mike Wilson
Classifieds Monitor
Posts: 11490
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:37 pm
Location: SW Los Angeles

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#344 Post by Mike Wilson »

CJ, the info on insurance is in the recently published financials but, along the same vein, I, too, was wondering specifically what the ramifications of the lawsuits have been. Perhaps a separate accounting on costs associated with the lawsuits including the increase in insurance would be helpful to the membership?

Mike Wilson
Lomita, CA
'63 B coupe
Mike Wilson
Lomita, CA
'63 B coupe

User avatar
Vic Skirmants
Registry Hall of Fame
Posts: 9276
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: SE Michigan
Contact:

Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update

#345 Post by Vic Skirmants »

Has everybody checked the results??

Locked