ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

Retired Forums => Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum => Topic started by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on October 16, 2012, 05:47:04 PM

Title: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on October 16, 2012, 05:47:04 PM
This case concerning Glen Carner, Hawaiian Art Network and Photographer Vincent K. Tylor has been closed...

This action commenced on April 19, 2012. No proof of service has been filed with the Court, and no Defendants have appeared in this case. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why Defendants have not been timely served. Plaintiff has 7 days to comply with this order; or if Defendants have been served, Plaintiff has 7 days to file the proofs of service. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of this action. (lc) (Entered: 09/27/2012)

Title: Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Jerry Witt (mcfilms) on October 16, 2012, 10:34:10 PM
So HAN made a big fuss and then did nothing? Is that the gist of it?

But they could still be counter-sued, correct? I mean somebody accumulated some legal bills during the course of this folly.
Title: Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on October 17, 2012, 12:36:18 AM
It’s probably taking all his resources to try and defend himself with the Aloha counter suit.  It would not be wise to try to take on a multiple front battle at this point for him.
Title: Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on October 17, 2012, 06:13:58 AM
Apparently Hawaiian Art Network filed the suit, paid the 350.00 filing fee, but never served the other party, hence the other party never knew they were going to  get sued (except for the fact that I spoke with them and alerted them.) Idon't think a counter-suit would be an option...basically Glen Carner donated 350.00 to the court system and paid his attorneys to file the papers.
Title: Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Mulligan on October 17, 2012, 09:58:57 AM
I  vaguely recall another case where no papers were served so the judge ordered the whole deal dropped.

Could this sort of behavior be a tactic in cases where the troll thinks he has a pretty big extraction payment almost coming his way but feels like he needs to set the hook harder and quicker? So he spends $350 to file and then writes the victim that this has been done with something like this in his letter: "Pay up quick, buddy. I just filed a law suit with federal court and will have the formal papers served to you if you don't cough up my $2800 by XXX."

I don't know. I'm speculating more than I should, not knowing the details about how much it costs to serve formal papers, how long it takes, etc, etc, etc. But I'm curious if this or a variation of it is a tactic used by lawyers to get what they want.
Title: Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Matthew Chan on October 17, 2012, 07:20:14 PM
Serving papers can be anywhere from $50-$100.  It isn't that expensive in the big scheme of things.  However, serving a lawsuit does potentially open some unpleasant doors.  As HAN has learned the hard way and what I have said for some time, be careful in who you file a lawsuit on because they may turn the tables on you and slap a counter-lawsuit back where it becomes a legal tangled mess.
Title: Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on October 17, 2012, 08:29:05 PM
My theory is that Glen Carner filed this with the intention of following through or using it to extract payment but very shortly after filing Aloha hit Glenn with their countersuit which caused him to divert his time, attention and resources to that. It would be interesting to see the date when filed the suit and compare that to the date when Aloha filed their countersuit. I am sure that the countersuit rattled him pretty good and as I said before no one wants to fight a battle on two fronts if you can avoid it.
Title: Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on October 17, 2012, 09:14:33 PM
I think you are right on the money with this theory... I just pulled up both cases.

HAN filed suit against The Scott on 4/19/12 and Aloha hit HAN with a counter suit on 5/19/12

My theory is that Glen Carner filed this with the intention of following through or using it to extract payment but very shortly after filing Aloha hit Glenn with their countersuit which caused him to divert his time, attention and resources to that. It would be interesting to see the date when filed the suit and compare that to the date when Aloha filed their countersuit. I am sure that the countersuit rattled him pretty good and as I said before no one wants to fight a battle on two fronts if you can avoid it.
Title: Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on October 17, 2012, 10:58:59 PM
Ahhhh, the great Karnak strikes again. I am sure most here will not know who this is but I remember watching this and laughing my butt off :D

(http://i45.tinypic.com/ozdjc.jpg)

A. Suffering from a major case of butthurt.

Q. What's wrong with Glen Carner?


I think you are right on the money with this theory... I just pulled up both cases.

HAN filed suit against The Scott on 4/19/12 and Aloha hit HAN with a counter suit on 5/19/12

My theory is that Glen Carner filed this with the intention of following through or using it to extract payment but very shortly after filing Aloha hit Glenn with their countersuit which caused him to divert his time, attention and resources to that. It would be interesting to see the date when filed the suit and compare that to the date when Aloha filed their countersuit. I am sure that the countersuit rattled him pretty good and as I said before no one wants to fight a battle on two fronts if you can avoid it.
Title: Re: Hawaiian Art Network LLC v. The Scott LLC et al
Post by: Mulligan on October 18, 2012, 10:13:07 AM
Thanks for the comments to my speculation, guys.

I checked out "service of process" at Wikipedia and learned:

Most states have a deadline for completing service of process after filing of the summons and complaint. In New York, for example, service must be completed in 120 days after filing for almost all cases,[14] and Hawaii State Circuit Court rule 28 requires service in a civil lawsuit must be effected within 6 months from commencing suit.[15]*

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_of_process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_of_process)

I couldn't find if the above was also true for suits filed in federal court.