Looks like SC's mass suit in Vegas got dismissed without prejudice.

They can re-file in by the beginning of March ( at the latest)- since it was without prejudice- but if they do they will have to file each case separately with separate fees for each filing.

I'm betting that isn't going to happen- or if it does, it will only be on 1 or 2 of the very smallest venues.

Any takers?

Say it ain't so Joe, the certified hosts on the other forum are jumping up and down and say a few of the easily pressured have already settled. This will give SC the badly needed funds to go on with their individual suits. These suits should have been filed individually in the first place, and it was due to lack of proper resources on SC's part that they were not. One thing I'm wondering even if they do file and go to court, what are they going to do for evidence? APS did the investigations and compiled the files, and SC is suing it's former contractor. Does this mean SC is going to have to do new investigations? I have my doubts the first ones were ever done. Why else did APS fail to produce the files to Donna Boris in the California suits? Especially when APS stood to get 30% of the recovered monies from the settlements. Oh well let's hope this year will see the last of this comic opera. Have a nice day.

1) We have never used investigative reports for evidence in a contested case. The investigative work is strictly for the purpose of establishing a good faith basis for a lawsuit.

2) We do not have a problem with paying filing fees where the courts require it. Good businesses strive to cut costs even when it's not strictly necessary. It's become necessary, so we'll pay them, and pass the extra costs onto the defendants through settlement or judgment.

1) Agreed- then again, that may be because many- including myself- don't believe that they exist- hence, many dismissals.- and some judges' reprimands.

2) You may well pass the expenses on- if you win a case. Since so many negative precedents have been recorded against SC, anyone with a decent legal background may well make this much more difficult to do.

Still flogging that dead horse, I see. It's been proven to you that they do exist, so at this point it's just a question of your integrity.

As for "so many negative precedents," those don't exist either. There is not a single on-merits precedent against our project. The courts have routinely upheld our theory of prosecution. We've now had two merits trials, and both have resulted in victory for the good guys. And I know it kills you that we're right, but that doesn't make us wrong.

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

We have never used investigative reports for evidence in a contested case. The investigative work is strictly for the purpose of establishing a good faith basis for a lawsuit.

SC is in good financial shape and we will be filing new actions in Las Vegas shortly.

We do not have a problem with paying filing fees where the courts require it. Good businesses strive to cut costs even when it's not strictly necessary. It's become necessary, so we'll pay them, and pass the extra costs onto the defendants through settlement or judgment.

A police or private investigator's report is never submitted as evidence in court and in 30 years as a police officer then a private investigator, not one of my reports was ever submitted as evidence. My evidence was always given on the stand. Even when autopsy reports are given, they will not (other than extreme circumstances) be accepted as evidence until the examiner has testified. You guys must watch too much TV/movies and think what you see is so, when it is not.

@Timberlea: What if an investigator is dead or missing, then the only thing left is his evidence/report. That has been known to happen, I bet. Without probable cause evidence, what is the basis for the suit? If the evidence is not shown, and the investigator has vanished, then what proof is there that the law suit was warranted?

What's left is the evidence on the operator's computer system, plus business records and the operator's testimony. That material is obtained in discovery.

The investigative report is never used unless the good faith basis for bringing the suit is challenged under Rule 11.

McGog, I guess you do not understand the words "extreme cases" which are very very rare. Even of the investigator dies, there would be a Voir Dire, to see if the report can be entered as evidence. The reports assist the prosecutor and gives him or her the background and the events of the case to plan their prosecution.

Over the years I have learned there are stupid questions.