In civil court there's no prosecution, there's the person suing and the person being sued. Criminal trials have prosecutions. Civil trials have plaintiffs and defendants.FalloutJack said:
Jim Sterling in court.
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
You know what I mean. Let's not go on about terminology when it's not ME in court.Imperioratorex Caprae said:In civil court there's no prosecution, there's the person suing and the person being sued. Criminal trials have prosecutions. Civil trials have plaintiffs and defendants.FalloutJack said:
So it seems the motion for dismissal for Romine's second lawsuit has been dismissed without prejudice.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19146067/Romine_v_Unknown_Party_et_al
So few things here. One is his refund for the $400 filing fee is denied and the other his subpeona to Valve is consider to be moot.
Now of course, since this is dismissed without prejudice, Romine might redo case later on at some point. That is, if he does have the money for it.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19146067/Romine_v_Unknown_Party_et_al
So few things here. One is his refund for the $400 filing fee is denied and the other his subpeona to Valve is consider to be moot.
Now of course, since this is dismissed without prejudice, Romine might redo case later on at some point. That is, if he does have the money for it.
So he completely lost the second case here eh? I think we all saw this coming. Now we need to see this happen with the Jim case and maybe he'll shut his stupid face for a little while. The article linked above in Gades' post made me see how little they really understood why they are hated. At least DH is actually deadKoalaMan412 said:
Nope.Elvis Starburst said:
He ran out of money and requested the case be dismissed. It was dismissed. Case closed (for the time being).
So technically, he didn't lose - because the case never happened. Well, he did lose $400. Does that count?
Would he have lost if the case had continued?... It doesn't matter.
Speculating on the recent interviews and feedback James Romine has given, he is closing up Digital Homicide and going to seek employment for someone else, probably as a programmer. I hope he finds some peace in his new role, if and when it happens. Then he can go back to being ignored like 99% of developers of bad games. Beyond that, my only hope is for something to balance out the financial and personal stress on Jim Sterling - though quite honestly, I'm really unsure what could be deemed justice without it becoming vindictive or disproportionate. Sadly I think the pitchfork and torches crowd will win out, as if he had done something which impacted their lives personally beyond "got mad at something that happened on the internet". Which really would be ironic.
Ah, a fine present to wake up to: to see these two destroy themselves just a little bit further.Gades said:
I'm sorry; I just sprayed coffee all over my monitor.Elwes said:
If I recall correctly, $400 is almost the entire amount he received from other people to pursue the suit. Still, he's not in the red which must come as a relief.KoalaMan412 said:
Just a heads up guys, Digital Homicide is for all intents and purposes dead.
http://www.pcgamer.com/digital-homicide-withdraws-lawsuit-against-steam-users-says-studio-is-destroyed/
I don't know, the ending just feels anti-climatic. But then again I look forward for the Jimquisition about his victory over this cunts.
http://www.pcgamer.com/digital-homicide-withdraws-lawsuit-against-steam-users-says-studio-is-destroyed/
I don't know, the ending just feels anti-climatic. But then again I look forward for the Jimquisition about his victory over this cunts.
My understanding is that the lawsuit against Jim Sterling continues, it's only the lawsuit against Steam/anonymous users that's been dropped.Antonio Torrente said:
Digital Homicide being gone, I don't really see that as a victory. I mean sure, one fewer crappy studios throwing out asset-flipped shovelware onto the marketplace, and they really did bring this on themselves, but...
Actually, screw it. I want to take the moral high ground, acknowledge that this guy's career is in tatters and thinking about the ramifications for his family and everything, but frankly he done goof'd and I have little sympathy for him. Nobody should be subjected to the abuse that he received, but let's not forget that he resorted to the same tactics with his "I'm Jim Fucking Sterling, son" comeback video, along with all of his other shady practices demonstrated in the lead up to this shitstorm. And then he paints himself as the victim. Maybe he genuinely believes that he is. More fool him.
The sooner both of these cases get permanently quashed the better. Then James Romine can disappear back into obscurity, like a talentless Phil Fish.
This seems about as climactic as this could ever realistically be. As amazing as it would have been for the Romines to have an Ace Attorney style breakdown where they froth at the mouth and scream before confessing all their various sins, I was pretty certain this would end with DigiHom just quietly dropping off the map at some point. The fact there's a definitive statement saying they're done for is more than I'd ever expect we'd get.Antonio Torrente said:
Even though this isn't the lawsuit against Jim, I can't imagine that the Jim lawsuit is far behind from a dismissal. Even if the judge doesn't dismiss it, I seriously doubt Romine can sustain a legal battle in his current situation.
Although some speculate that they may try this bullshit again in the future with a different company with a different name like they have done before. But then again, their level of immaturity and awfulness is like a DNA to them so its easy for us go spot them if they ever decided to come back.Fsyco said:
I doubt they'd come back. By the time they'd ever get money to revive this lawsuit, they'll have moved on to some new thing to be upset about. The cycle will begin again.Antonio Torrente said:
Sweet! Anyone looked at this yet? Probably just says "Well you're gonna dismiss this anyway, so who cares?"Gades said:
After reading through this document, it looks like Sterling's lawyers went pretty hard against Romine's recent motion. Mainly in terms that Romine filed this correction while the motion to dismiss is still under review and the fact that it' wasting judicial resources. In addition to it, it doesn't change the legal principles for this case as well as nothing to do with the motion to dismiss. In the second paragraph, Romine motion to amend is useless because he wants to change the reference of "recognition of foreign judgements" to another references which is "one-year statute of limitation on defamation claims in Arizona". There are no foreign judgments at issue in this case and the statute of limitations is a defense to a defamation claim and not a separate legal cause of action. Hence, that is why they want to deny Romine's recent motion to amend.Fsyco said:
Here is the full documentation for what was mentioned here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant James Stanton responds in opposition to Plaintiff?s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 33]. Defendant objects to the Motion for Leave to Amend because it is improper and untimely while a Motion to Dismiss is pending and also because the proposed amendment is futile.
A Motion to Dismiss was filed on May 10, 2016 [Doc. 19] and a decision is pending. Until an order is issued on the Motion to Dismiss it is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to consider an amendment to the complaint. The proposed amendment does not change
the legal principles and issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss and has no relevance at this
point in the proceedings. Only if the Court denies Defendant?s Motion to Dismiss should a
Motion for Leave to Amend be considered.
Additionally, the Motion to Amend should be denied because the proposed amendment is futile. With the amendment Plaintiff seeks to replace a reference to 28 U.S.C. ? 4101 (recognition of foreign defamation judgments) with a reference to A.R.S. ? 12-541 (one-year
statute of limitation on defamation claims in Arizona). Neither statute provides a cause of action for Plaintiff. There are no foreign judgments at issue in this case and the statute of limitations is a defense to a defamation claim and not a separate legal cause of action. The district court may deny leave to amend when the proposed amendment is futile and the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by the plaintiff are not a proper subject of relief. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008), quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The Motion for Leave to Amend should be denied because a motion to dismiss is pending and because the proposed amendment is futile. Defendant should not be required to spend resources responding to a futile and irrelevant complaint amendment while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. At a minimum any decision on the Motion for Leave to Amend should be deferred until after the Court has ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, in the other lawsuit for Romine against 100 users, there are two new updates from yesterday:
9. Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP)
10. MOTION for Leave to File Magistrate Fome With Exception by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (MAP)
I haven't read much of this yet, but it seems that Romine filed this motion to explain why he couldn't file the Certification of Service since he couldn't get the Defendants information as well as the reason why he wanted the case dismissed due to his business being destroyed. Along with that, wants to discuss with Judge Willet about the lack of enforcement of ARS-13-02921 (which is the code reference of harassment I believe) and would like to take some time to discuss about it. Other than that, this is what I can understand so far for this and from the last paragraph, it seems he's trying to apologize for wasting the court's time and did not know this filing would've destroyed his business and, from what I can see, still wants to press charges against the 100 users.
UPDATE: On October 11, Judge Willett denied Romine's MOTION for Leave to File Magistrate Fome With Exception as moot since the case was dismissed.