Axl Rose Slams Irving Azoff In $5 Million Countersuit

[zihuatenajo]

axl countersuit is vague legally thats the problem..

And where did you attend Law School? Matchbook University? 

yeah i went to legal school here in my country and also won a scholarship in law philosophy in boston college
at keast im not a red neck living in the middle of nowhere in iceville canada... like you

That sir , is a very ignorant comment. When I say ignorant.. I mean rude and uninformed.  We have four seasons , just like you americans. Yes , for 2-4 months a year we wear shorts and t -shirts too. It's crazy how stupid some people are

[cineater]

er, not all Americans get 4 seasons, sorry people in the United States.  Americans encompasses 2 continents, I believe including yours although I'm not sure where Shawn's at exactly. 

Having said that, that was pretty rude and the guy is not going to do very well in the legal field with those kind of arguments, in my opinion, having been in the court room and not on the wrong side of the bench on many occasions.  Quite frankly, I expected better grammar and a far better argument than a personal attack from a scholar.

[PJ]

yeah axls legal files are vague.. also if he had an aggrement with irvin.. you cant destroy that
sorry i get into personal stuff.. i have know CB for at least 5 years, even moderating in the same team.. i know for sure he is not the most peaceful and sweet person

[Jessica]

California is in DEBT so badly that courtrooms aren't going to take bullshit and cases aren't going to go for weeks because it's too expensive.

So both parties better have strong arguments or not go at all.

Also, if axl wants to go on with this, he should be able to prove Irving had bad intentions.

Axl is used to courtrooms and may not be taken seriously, therefore, EVERY argument put before the judge has to have solid foundations and each has to be PROVED.

Because should there be a slight doubt in the judge's mind, the case's advantage will turn around and then, Azzoff demands compensation.

Right.

[kukol1978]

Axl and Guns should focus their efforts of doing a proper promo!.They dont need more battles,i understand what Axl says and it has all the signs of being true,because its same old shit about the reunion.

They need videos,concerts and rip the world in two with killer songs and awesome concerts like they are doing and NO MORE bad news and fights,becuase its sad to be news in that way.

Cant wait till october !

[NaturalLight]

California is in DEBT so badly that courtrooms aren't going to take bullshit and cases aren't going to go for weeks because it's too expensive.

So both parties better have strong arguments or not go at all.

Also, if axl wants to go on with this, he should be able to prove Irving had bad intentions.

Axl is used to courtrooms and may not be taken seriously, therefore, EVERY argument put before the judge has to have solid foundations and each has to be PROVED.

Because should there be a slight doubt in the judge's mind, the case's advantage will turn around and then, Azzoff demands compensation.

Right.

no offense but california's debt isn't going to factor into a decision. It's not like the state is prosecuting anyone. this is a civil suit filed by private attorneys. yes, a taxpyaer funded judge would hear the case, but that person has to show up to work anyway. and since most cases do not make it to trial the judge probably doesn't have a whole lot to hear.

[oldgunsfan]

this hasn't been thrown out of court yet?

[oldgunsfan]

axl countersuit is vague legally thats the problem..

And where did you attend Law School? Matchbook University? 

yeah i went to legal school here in my country and also won a scholarship in law philosophy in boston college
at keast im not a red neck living in the middle of nowhere in iceville canada... like you

That sir , is a very ignorant comment. When I say ignorant.. I mean rude and uninformed.  We have four seasons , just like you americans. Yes , for 2-4 months a year we wear shorts and t -shirts too. It's crazy how stupid some people are

yes, the world is full of stupid people, it's actually overpopulated by them

[Jessica]

California is in DEBT so badly that courtrooms aren't going to take bullshit and cases aren't going to go for weeks because it's too expensive.

So both parties better have strong arguments or not go at all.

Also, if axl wants to go on with this, he should be able to prove Irving had bad intentions.

Axl is used to courtrooms and may not be taken seriously, therefore, EVERY argument put before the judge has to have solid foundations and each has to be PROVED.

Because should there be a slight doubt in the judge's mind, the case's advantage will turn around and then, Azzoff demands compensation.

Right.

no offense but california's debt isn't going to factor into a decision. It's not like the state is prosecuting anyone. this is a civil suit filed by private attorneys. yes, a taxpyaer funded judge would hear the case, but that person has to show up to work anyway. and since most cases do not make it to trial the judge probably doesn't have a whole lot to hear.

from " all about civil claims"

Who can start a civil action?

Anyone can start a civil action in the state of California and other jurisdictions so long as they are not a plaintiff who continually files lawsuits that are deemed to be frivolous by courts. Once a plaintiff has done this over and over and over again, and is deemed to have been too litigious, those would be the only people who could not file a civil action. As a general proposition, you still are going to have to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in your court complaint. If you cannot do so, the court may dismiss your complaint on its own motion or by motion of the person whom you have filed the civil action against.


http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/cjr/firstreport/cost.asp

The Cost of the Civil Justice System

CHAPTER 11


11.1 Cost and Value of Justice
Justice is such a fine thing that we cannot pay too dearly for it.

?Alain Rene Lesage
The civil justice system costs money.

The "cost" of civil justice accordingly has different faces. Government ? and therefore the public in its taxpaying capacity ? shoulders a major portion of the cost. Litigants, who are at the same time taxpayers, also shoulder an additional cost of the civil justice system. There are institutional or systemic costs on the one hand and user costs in the form of legal fees and administration, on the other hand.

How does one go about assessing these various costs and their impact in order to determine what value the public and litigants are receiving for their money? Are these costs in keeping with an effective, efficient and accessible civil justice system?

These questions are very difficult to answer, partly because very little study has previously been given to them. Having some concept or definition of what the true value of civil justice is to the province and its citizens in this sense, however, could be a useful guide to any assessment of the degree to which that value is actually achieved. No such concept or definition exists at the present time, as far as we have been able to determine.

We do not refer to value in this context in the sense of the qualities of worthiness of the system, but rather in the sense of what might be described in an investment analogy as a return on one's money. Are the public and litigants getting the best return on their investment and expenditure on civil justice? In our consultations with the public the overwhelming answer to that quest ion was "No". To a lesser extent, the Bar expressed a similar sentiment.

One can catalogue the obvious reasons easily. Most litigants simply want to have their disputes resolved quickly and cheaply, and to move on with their lives. Delays in proceedings are legion, however, and their associated costs enormous. Cost and delay are the twin enemies of the civil justice system ( I IMAGINE IT IS NOT WASTING A JUDGE'S TIME OR TAXPAYER'S MONEY.
Old Guns, I suggest you stop thinking you're clever.

Old Fan.

[NaturalLight]

California is in DEBT so badly that courtrooms aren't going to take bullshit and cases aren't going to go for weeks because it's too expensive.

So both parties better have strong arguments or not go at all.

Also, if axl wants to go on with this, he should be able to prove Irving had bad intentions.

Axl is used to courtrooms and may not be taken seriously, therefore, EVERY argument put before the judge has to have solid foundations and each has to be PROVED.

Because should there be a slight doubt in the judge's mind, the case's advantage will turn around and then, Azzoff demands compensation.

Right.

no offense but california's debt isn't going to factor into a decision. It's not like the state is prosecuting anyone. this is a civil suit filed by private attorneys. yes, a taxpyaer funded judge would hear the case, but that person has to show up to work anyway. and since most cases do not make it to trial the judge probably doesn't have a whole lot to hear.

from " all about civil claims"

Who can start a civil action?

Anyone can start a civil action in the state of California and other jurisdictions so long as they are not a plaintiff who continually files lawsuits that are deemed to be frivolous by courts. Once a plaintiff has done this over and over and over again, and is deemed to have been too litigious, those would be the only people who could not file a civil action. As a general proposition, you still are going to have to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in your court complaint. If you cannot do so, the court may dismiss your complaint on its own motion or by motion of the person whom you have filed the civil action against.


http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/cjr/firstreport/cost.asp

The Cost of the Civil Justice System

CHAPTER 11


11.1 Cost and Value of Justice
Justice is such a fine thing that we cannot pay too dearly for it.

?Alain Rene Lesage
The civil justice system costs money.

The "cost" of civil justice accordingly has different faces. Government ? and therefore the public in its taxpaying capacity ? shoulders a major portion of the cost. Litigants, who are at the same time taxpayers, also shoulder an additional cost of the civil justice system. There are institutional or systemic costs on the one hand and user costs in the form of legal fees and administration, on the other hand.

How does one go about assessing these various costs and their impact in order to determine what value the public and litigants are receiving for their money? Are these costs in keeping with an effective, efficient and accessible civil justice system?

These questions are very difficult to answer, partly because very little study has previously been given to them. Having some concept or definition of what the true value of civil justice is to the province and its citizens in this sense, however, could be a useful guide to any assessment of the degree to which that value is actually achieved. No such concept or definition exists at the present time, as far as we have been able to determine.

We do not refer to value in this context in the sense of the qualities of worthiness of the system, but rather in the sense of what might be described in an investment analogy as a return on one's money. Are the public and litigants getting the best return on their investment and expenditure on civil justice? In our consultations with the public the overwhelming answer to that quest ion was "No". To a lesser extent, the Bar expressed a similar sentiment.

One can catalogue the obvious reasons easily. Most litigants simply want to have their disputes resolved quickly and cheaply, and to move on with their lives. Delays in proceedings are legion, however, and their associated costs enormous. Cost and delay are the twin enemies of the civil justice system ( I IMAGINE IT IS NOT WASTING A JUDGE'S TIME OR TAXPAYER'S MONEY.
Old Guns, I suggest you stop thinking you're clever.

Old Fan.

still don't buy it. again, no offense but you're selectively underlining parts of the article that support your statement and not the other side. the article clearly says the questions are difficult to answer and no serious study has been conducted.

AND ARE YOU QUOTING CANADIAN LAW (which has different procedures, systems, governing bodies, tax and funding system)

anyway, guess we can agree to disagree. still, if it's not considered frivolous - and that will be challenged early on in pre-trial hearings - then he'll get his day in court - whether california is bankrupt or not. also, the law aimed at overly litigious folks is aimed at the scam artists. but, again, a judge will determine that, too.

[NaturalLight]

uh, not sure why those sad face icons popped up in my last post. didn't mean to throw them in.

[GypsySoul]

uh, not sure why those sad face icons popped up in my last post. didn't mean to throw them in.

If you type 3 question marks in a row, it will show up as that smilie so since you probably typed 6 question marks in a row, two of those smilies appeared.

[Jdog0830]

If Axl can prove those bad intentions to the judge and show that he was bullyed then the advantage is Axls as long as he does it perfectly because those judges can tear you appart if you show doubt.

Since Irving attacked first though the advantage is his. Sneaky scum ball!!!


Joe

[veritas55]

1.  The California debt has nothing to do with whether this case will stay in court or not.

2.  The Judge will not necessarily decide this case: The parties will likely file motions for summary judgment, asking the judge to decide the case as a matter of law before trial.  This typically happens after discovery is closed.  If the Judge does not decide the case as a matter of law (and they often don't when significant facts are in dispute), then it will go to a jury for presentation of evidence and verdict.

3.  The provisions for being over litigious (filing too many lawsuits) do not apply here for at least two reasons:  Axl isn't the plaintiff (Azoff filed the lawsuit and Axl filed counterclaims in response), and, in any event, those provisions typically apply to litigants with mental problems who repeatedly file patently frivolous lawsuits (i.e.,  lawsuits that have zero merit on their face).  Then again, maybe that provision does apply here . . . . (I kid, I kid).

Probably will settle before trial.

[FunkyMonkey]

Things appear to be moving forward -- and this could get interesting.

Future Hearings

10/08/2010 at 09:00 am in department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for Protective Order (2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF IRVING AZOFF.)

02/25/2011 at 08:45 am in department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Conference-Post Mediation Status

04/15/2011 at 09:00 am in department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference

04/26/2011 at 09:30 am in department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial

[wight gunner]

Things appear to be moving forward -- and this could get interesting.

Future Hearings

10/08/2010 at 09:00 am in department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for Protective Order (2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF IRVING AZOFF.)

02/25/2011 at 08:45 am in department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Conference-Post Mediation Status

04/15/2011 at 09:00 am in department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference

04/26/2011 at 09:30 am in department 16 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial

The U.S. legal system is different to the UK, so have cut and paste the answer to what a Motion to compel Deposition is:

Answer[/b]

If you are involved in a lawsuit the opposing side is allowed to receive certain documents from you as part of the discovery process. The documents were probably already asked for in a Request for Production. A motion to compel is a motion to the court, which if granted will force you to produce the documents to the opposing counsel, which were asked for in the Request for Production.    

Answer

A motion to compel may also apply to other forms of discovery, such as a motion to compel responses to interrogatories (written questions), a motion to compel attendance at a deposition, etc.

With regard to documents, state discovery laws may require the opponent receiving a document request to provide a "response" to your request for the production of documents. This "response" is to be distinguished from the actual production of the documents. You may have to bring a motion to compel a response if your request receives no response. If you receive some response but think it evasive, you might bring a motion to compel a further response. If you get a response, but the party refuses to produce documents it should produce in accordance with the response, your motion to compel is a motion to compel production.

If the court grants the motion to compel, and the party to whom/which the order is directed remains evasive or non-compliant, the other party may file a second motion to compel or a motion for sanctions. Depending upon the degree of noncompliance (or perhaps the attitude of the non-movant or the judge), the court has the power, within reason, to impose one or more categories of sanctions. These can range from yet another order compelling compliance (usually requiring compliance within a shorter time than the first order allowed), to attorney's fees, to deeming, for evidentiary purposes, that the material that would have been produced or stated in answers to interrogatories, was prejudicial to the non-compliant party. There is a great deal of discretion that is usually allowed the trial court judge in determining sanctions, but the sanctions must be commensurate to the violation.



So am I correct in saying that Axl's called Azoff's bluff and is awaiting documents that "prove" Azoff's claim?

[FunkyMonkey]

So am I correct in saying that Axl's called Azoff's bluff and is awaiting documents that "prove" Azoff's claim?

My understanding anyway -- he's calling Azoff's bluff but they're not waiting for documents, but rather Azoff's deposition.  A deposition is defined as...

The sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial held out of court with no judge present. The witness is placed under oath to tell the truth and lawyers for each party may ask questions. The questions and answers are recorded. When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, the deposition of that person may be used. Part of the pre-trial discovery (fact-finding) process.

Before it is taken, the witness ought to be sworn or affirmed to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[chineseblues]

So am I correct in saying that Axl's called Azoff's bluff and is awaiting documents that "prove" Azoff's claim?

My understanding anyway -- he's calling Azoff's bluff but they're not waiting for documents, but rather Azoff's deposition.  A deposition is defined as...

The sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial held out of court with no judge present. The witness is placed under oath to tell the truth and lawyers for each party may ask questions. The questions and answers are recorded. When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, the deposition of that person may be used. Part of the pre-trial discovery (fact-finding) process.

Before it is taken, the witness ought to be sworn or affirmed to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

That's what I took it to be as well. Is Axl's side also looking for a restraining order against Azoff too? "Motion for Protective Order" or am I taking that out of context?

[FunkyMonkey]

Is Axl's side also looking for a restraining order against Azoff too? "Motion for Protective Order" or am I taking that out of context?

A restraining order may not be a bad idea.   But I think they mean more along the lines of this...

In litigation, an order that prevents the disclosure of sensitive information except to certain individuals under certain conditions.

A protective order is commonly used to protect a party or witness from unreasonable or invasive discovery requests (for example, harassing questions in a deposition, or an unnecessary medical examination).

[pilferk]

That's what I took it to be as well. Is Axl's side also looking for a restraining order against Azoff too? "Motion for Protective Order" or am I taking that out of context?

Probably not.

In this type of case, a Protective order actually pertains to information.  It's a request to ensure that information released only be yielded to those who need to see it.  Or, alternately, that the lawyers for one of the litigants doesn't want to release requested information to the opposing counsel (and they'll argue it's either not pertinent or that it would cause irreparable harm to their client or his business), they'll file a protective order.

It CAN be a "restraining order" but usually only in cases of domestic dispute.  

Since this is combined with a request to compel Azoff to offer sworn testimony in the form of a deposition, it could be one of two things:

It could be a SEPERATE protective order (which I think is unlikely..but it's possible) concerning some piece of info someone doesn't want released.

It could be that Azoff's counsel has invoked/filed a protective order, in relation to the defendant's request for deposition by Azoff, and the attorney for the defendant (that's Axl, FYI) is going to try to get the judge to reject that protective order AND compel Azoff to be deposed.