(10-24-2013 04:20 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 04:15 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I haven't seen the Amended Complaint but I'm curious how the Contractual Venue provisions that require litigation be filed in the Southern District of Florida were negated. See my post above.

I'd start by looking at who filed the suit.

Now now. Personal attacks aren't warranted. Perhaps since they weren't aboard a condition precedent wasn't satisfied? PACER is a SOB to access with a CellPhone

(10-24-2013 04:29 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 04:15 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I haven't seen the Amended Complaint but I'm curious how the Contractual Venue provisions that require litigation be filed in the Southern District of Florida were negated. See my post above.

I haven't looked either, but that is obviously waivable by the defendant. If the defendant chooses not to waive it, the remedy is likely to be a transfer to the S.D. Fl. (unless there is an overriding position that the clause isn't enforceable for some reason, a point that I have NOT done any research on and don't know if it has any merit). Of course it could simply be answered with an attendant waiver so it isn't an issue at all. We just don't know at this point, do we. Regardless, filing it in Galveston could be a litigation strategy that has merit. In short, it may not have been negated. Yet.

You are correct. I need to get to a real computer to look at it.

Good grief we need some Rice Owls athletics news (hopefully good) stat! My favorite road sign is the sign showing how far it is to El Paso. Its on I-10 Westbound not too long after crossing into Texas from Louisiana. I see it every time I drive back to Houston for a visit (too infrequent). I'll be thinking about it as Rice is hopefully kicking the snot out of UTEP!

Is this thread QUAD material? just a thought

I have to deal with snarky lawyers and semi-duplicitous clients all day. When coming here would appreciate a little respite from that......

(10-24-2013 05:42 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  I have to deal with snarky lawyers and semi-duplicitous clients all day. When coming here would appreciate a little respite from that......

Folks, I'll say it again - you don't have to click on the thread. The post was meant to bring this news to the forefront (in case anyone doesn't read the Chron daily). That's it.

This thread, by its very length, is beginning to justify the chief noun in its title.

(10-24-2013 05:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  This thread, by its very length, is beginning to justify the chief noun in its title.

(10-24-2013 11:40 AM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 11:26 AM)Owl Movement Wrote:  No doubt it was a screw-up by plaintiff's counsel. The best practice would be to have your clients read and review the Petition before it is filed, to avoid embarrassments such as this one.

But, an Amended Petition appears to have been filed within a week of the original filing, thus the (egregious) mistake was corrected before defendant had to file an Answer. So, nobody appears to have been harmed by the error.

The amended lawsuit may well lack any legal merit, but that is a different question, and one that defendant will have a fair opportunity to address.

Having filed state court Petitions and many federal court Complaints on behalf of plaintiffs, my take on the screw-up of my fellow Rice alum as reported in the article: judge not lest ye be judged.

AMEN!

Says the guy who rendered judgment: "Commendable".

(10-24-2013 06:58 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 11:40 AM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 11:26 AM)Owl Movement Wrote:  No doubt it was a screw-up by plaintiff's counsel. The best practice would be to have your clients read and review the Petition before it is filed, to avoid embarrassments such as this one.

But, an Amended Petition appears to have been filed within a week of the original filing, thus the (egregious) mistake was corrected before defendant had to file an Answer. So, nobody appears to have been harmed by the error.

The amended lawsuit may well lack any legal merit, but that is a different question, and one that defendant will have a fair opportunity to address.

Having filed state court Petitions and many federal court Complaints on behalf of plaintiffs, my take on the screw-up of my fellow Rice alum as reported in the article: judge not lest ye be judged.

AMEN!

Says the guy who rendered judgment: "Commendable".

Point taken. I did laud the immediate corrective action taken. I urged that judgment be reserved on the screw up until all facts are known. So flog me with a wet noodle.

Shouldn't this contest be moved from The Quad to America's Best Men's Room ???

(10-24-2013 09:49 PM)MrMxyzptlk Wrote:  Shouldn't this contest be moved from The Quad to America's Best Men's Room ???

I knew that would be about Buc-ee's. I knew it. I've not been in that men's room, but I knew it.

My co-workers thought I was kidding when I described Buc-ee's to them. We've worked on a lot of private development projects across the U.S. and over many years, but none of them involved a gas station or travel center at Buc-ee's scale.

(10-24-2013 09:49 PM)MrMxyzptlk Wrote:  Shouldn't this contest be moved from The Quad to America's Best Men's Room ???

Good article, and good use of subtlety by way of deflection.

That said, this isn't exactly the most ringing endorsement of a mens room that you'd want to see...

Holy Crap | Texas Monthly

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/holy-crap Wrote:Or, more tamely, “What the heck?!,” which a kid in glasses and a burnt-orange UT shirt blurted out as he rounded the corner and took in the full scope of the men’s room, before immediately turning around. Guess he didn’t have to go. Or maybe he was afraid he wouldn’t be able to find his way back out.

It seems to me the same could be said of many roadside stops in many states around the country...