PDA

View Full Version : Did Caterham settle the legal action with Autocourse



Ian
January 25th, 2005, 03:36 PM
Did Caterham settle the legal action with Autocourse? Do you guess they sold out to avoid a judgement. I understand it is for several million dollars.

magnusfeuer
January 26th, 2005, 12:48 AM
The last thing I heard is that the case is still crawling its way toward an unknown court date.

/Magnus F.

Rod
January 26th, 2005, 09:14 AM
It still has not gone to court. When you sell a company you have to disclose the liabilities and this is certainly one of them. The new owners have to answer the court action. Last year, I did get a copy of all of the filings from the court. It looks like, Caterham will win, since Autocourse’s claims seem groundless to me. (No, I am not a lawyer this is just my opinion).

Roll a 7
January 26th, 2005, 09:23 AM
The case goes to trial on either Feb 20 or 21. I would suspect that the buyer might be indemnified against a loss at some $$$$ number; perhaps versus a reduction/adjustment in the purchase price. 8)

xflow7
January 26th, 2005, 05:32 PM
First I've heard of this. Any chance someone could fill me in on the background, or point me to a link with more information?

Thanks.

Sean-og
January 27th, 2005, 12:38 PM
As this is a matter of pending litigation, I doubt you will find much information anywhere. Maybe after...

I got a call at work a few months back from a man asking me all kinds of questions about Autocourse and their situation. He gave his first name, which I don't recall now, and when I asked how he got my number at work, he said he got it from this web site. I'm pretty sure my work number is nowhere to be found here, and told him so, but he side-stepped that, saying he didn't recall exactly where he found the number. I have never conducted any business with them (I don't even have a Seven yet), so I can't give an opinion one way or the other, but I sure got the feeling someone was "fishing" for a slanderous comment from me... for what, I don't know. But I wasn't about to step into that one.

Roll a 7
January 27th, 2005, 03:52 PM
Since this matter is still pending I doubt if anyone is likely to offer much in the way of comment. Let the parties/courts decide!!

Ian: What sort of 7 are you racing? Where? Have you attended the NASA 7 events? Come race down south one of these days!! 8)

xflow7
January 27th, 2005, 04:58 PM
Understood. I'm not looking for commentary/speculation/etc., was just hoping even to find out who is suing who. Figured that information at least might be in the public domain.

Roll a 7
January 27th, 2005, 07:34 PM
It appears that Autocourse Inc., a former Caterham dealer, is suing Caterham Cars UK, Cateham USA, and possibly some other parties/entities. The exact details are not real clear, but what is stated is probably in the ballpark. Apologies to all parties for any unintentional mis-statement of facts.

Rod
February 8th, 2005, 10:22 AM
What do you want?
Information!

Any legal action is in the public records, and a copies be acquired from the court where the action is filed. They charge a per page copy fee, I think I paid $0.75 per page. I got a copy of the action late in 2003, when I heard that my name was in mentioned in the action.

Autocourse Inc, William Sours has filed an action against Caterham Cars, LTD UK, Simon Nearn, Caterham USA, INC, Rocky Mountain Sportscars, inc, Jonathan Nelson, Richard Kamp d/b/a Golden Gates Sevens, Benjamin Wofford, Hal Wofford and individual John Does 1 through 50 and ABC corporations.

The original Complaint is for:
1. Unfair Trade practice
2. unfair Competition
3. Intentional interference w/ prospective relationship
4. Trade Libel
5. Slander per Se

The original suit was filed back in 2003. Many amendments have been made to the original complaint. I have not sought the additional fillings. I am not a lawyer and these things seem really boring and repetitious. I do not see dollar amounts anywhere except that it is listed as Unlimited Civil over $25,000.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. If the above statements are incorrect please let me know.

Roll a 7
February 27th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Rumor is that the trial has been moved back, possibly to august. If that is erroneous I would appreciate some kind soul posting a correction to my unintentional mis-statement. 8)

Rod
February 28th, 2005, 11:58 AM
The judge recused (dismissed) himself from this case. It will be assigned to a new Judge and the next possible trial date is June 27th. I will post more information on this later this week.

Ian
June 6th, 2005, 04:20 PM
Looks like the attorney for the defendants should make sure his malpractice premiums are paid up. My opinion and a few others is you don't file motions you can't meet initial burden of proof. They lost on all issues. It appears they did not claim these things did not happen but that Autocourse should have known they were being cheated, lied to defrauded, and slandered earlier than they did and should have brought the suit sooner. They argued the statutes of limitations had run. What ever happened to I did not do it, instead of I did but you did not catch me in time?


AUTOCOURSE

VS

CATERHAM CARS LTD
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(DFT, CATERHAM CARS, SIMON NEARN, CATERHAM USA, ROCKY MOUNTAIN SPORTSCARS,
JONATHAN NELSON, RICHARD KAMP, BENJAMIN WOFFORD, HAL WOFFORD)

Summary Judgment on the First Cause of Action for breach of contract is
DENIED because the Moving Party has failed to meet its initial burden
of addressing ALL the alleged breaches. The Court is uncertain if the
evidence related to unearned discounts is the same as the error in commissions. Even so, the "press" car may raise an issue of fact. The 4/12/00 letter, even if admissible, does not address all the claims.

Summary Judgment on the Second and Third Causes of Action is DENIED because there are questions of fact whether unearned discounts or unearned benefits were given to competitors.

Summary Adjudication of the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action is DENIED
because Moving Party have failed to cite evidence in their separate statements of the number of kits sold and the promise that Rocky Mountain would cease acting as a dealer. Further, the Court declines to consider state of mind issues. The 4/12/00 letter is as consistent with an assertion of breach of contract as it is with an assertion of fraud. Moving Party has not provided any evidence from which it can be inferred that Plaintiff knew or should have known of the fraudulent intent at the time it was written.

Summary Adjudication of the Sixth Cause of Action is GRANTED by concession.

Summary Adjudication of the Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action is DENIED
because Moving Party has failed to present evidence that the alleged statements were not made by xxxxx, xxxxx, and xxxxx.


FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
2. UNFAIR PRACTICE ACT;
3. UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT
4. FRAUD AND DECEIT;
5. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;
6. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS;
7. TRADE LIBEL;
8. SLANDER PER SE;
9. SLANDER