Silverstein v. Liquid Minds, East Group, Techie Group, AXS Charge, Dev8 Entertainment, and Datatime Ideas

Silverstein v. Liquid Minds, East Group, Techie Group, AXS Charge, Dev8 Entertainment, and Datatime Ideas, and DOES 1-50

This is my third lawsuit against these spammers. I filed two other lawsuits against them, in 2005 and 2006,and received default judgments, both of which were collected. Timothy Walton, also received, and collected, a $100,000 default judgment against them. Despite over $350,000.00 in judgments and two court orders, they continued to spam. After I obtained a $1.9M default judgment against them, John Du Wors lies to the Court and claim that the Defendants are and didn't hear about this lawsuit March 19, 2008. Du Wors also lied saying that Defendants did not have any notice of any of my prior two lawsuits against them.

Their attorney, John Du Wors, has committed perjury multiple times in this case. In multiple declarations (statements under oath), DuWors stated that none of the Defendants had notice of the prior two cases against them. On November 11, 2008, Emanuel Gurtler, the co-owner/operator of ALL Defendants, impeached his own lawyer when he stated under oath that they were aware of my two prior lawsuits against them, but they decide not to fight it. In another instance of his perjury, DuWors stated under oath that he had a "meet and confer" with my attorney on September 29, 2008, but there was no such call received at the office and DuWors failed to produce a single document evidencing this alleged phone call, ie. a long distance bill showing the call between his and my lawyer's office.

Du Wors recently stated it is a long process for someone eligible for the visa waiver program to enter the United States. Is he that confused about immigration law, or is he lying to the judge to justify his client not appearing in Los Angeles for deposition? Is his clients afraid to come to the USA because they are worried that hundreds of spam victims will line up to serve summons upon them?

April 10, 2009	Motion to compel further responses of form interrogatories and document productions. Court granted this motion and ordered Defendants to provide further responses to Form interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1, all of Plaintiff's document requests, and to make copies of their servers within 14 days. The Court further ordered Defendants and John Du Wors to pay $4,000.00 in sanctions for discovery abuse.
March 26, 2009	Motion for reimbursement of Plaintiff's attorney's travel expenses and sanctions for Defendants for failing to meet and confer. Defendants spent about $5,000 in attorney fees to save about $600.00 in expenses. Is DuWors raping Defendants on attorney fees?
March 12, 2009	Defendant Liquid Minds, LLC failed to appear at or object to a properly noticed deposition. Defendants are terrified appearing at deposition as they know that when questioned, they will decimate their own case. Gurtler, at deposition admitted that they received the earlier lawsuits, but decided not to defend them. Gurtler stated that when they "East Group" and "Techie Group" to avoid the Visa fraud detection systems, not to avoid my lawsuit.
January 26, 2009	In a late response to a fax asking about the scheduling and location of a deposition, DuWors not only lies, but he threatens to "relentlessly pursue sanctions." In October, DurWors misrepresented to the Court that Defendants could not come to this the USA for deposition, so the Court ordered the deposition held in Canada and that the Defendants pay the transportation costs. Defendants still refuse to reimburse the costs. Again, in deposition, Gurtler impeached his own lawyer. Was DuWors mistaken, or was he lying again?
January 21, 2009	The Court heard: Plaintiff's 10 motions to compel further responses. Denied, parties were told to work it out. Defendants' motion for sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel. Denied. Defendants Liquid Minds, Techie Group, East Group, Datatime Ideas limited motion to vacate default and default judgment. Granted. Given that DuWors has repeatedly perjured himself, I am surprised that the Court can keep a straight face when he speaks.
October 30, 2008	The Court heard: Defendants' motion to quash deposition and for a protective order-- denied in part. Defendants' motion to for a protective order -- denied. Motion to strike answers of AXS Charge Ltd and Dev8 Limited, granted in part. Demurrer of affirmative defenses of AXS Charge and Dev8 -- granted. Motion to Strike answers of Liquid Minds, LLC, East Group LLC, Techie Group, LLC, Datatime Idea -- Sort of granted, in part, the Court ordered them to file a motion to vacate default. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court granting Defendants' motion to vacate default and default judgment. - Denied. After Plaintiff filed his motions to strike their answers, Defendants filed amended verifications to correct the defects. The Court ordered
September 2, 2008	Filed a motion to strike answers of AXS Charge and Dev8 Entertainment. The verification of the complaint is defective as it does not state the name of the person signing. It is also late and they are asserting the Defendants of jurisdiction, venue, and service, which they waived. Plaintiff also filed a demurrer to the affirmative defenses as Defendants failed to properly plead them.
August 25, 2008	Filed a motion to strike answers of Liquid Minds, East Group, Techie Group, and Datatime Ideas. They are in default, at least three of them are not in good corporate standing, and the verification of the complaint don't even state the name of the person signing. What are they trying to hide?
August 21, 2008	Filed an ex parte application to re-enter default judgment as Defendants didn't file an answer. This was denied as Defendants' filed an answer the night before, after receiving notice of this hearing. The judge awarded $8,500 in sanctions against Defendants, and put them on a short leash.
August 13, 2008	Filed a motion for reconsideration. Defendants, in a motion for a protective orders, admitted that Defendants DO have California contacts, which is in direct conflict with their earlier declaration that Defendant have NO California contacts. Also, the Court did not rule on Plaintiff's objections to Defendants' evidence -- DuWors hearsay declaration, the sole evidence in support of their motion.
August 4, 2008	Defendants' AXS Charge and Dev8 Entertainment motion to vacate default and default judgment was granted, under the condition that they file an answer within 10 days.
June 23, 2008	Defendants AXS Charge and Dev8 Entertainment file a motion to vacate default and default judgment, claiming that they were not served and that they have no California contacts. The only evidence to support this was a declaration from their attorney, John DuWors.
May 14, 2008	Federal Court ruled that service was proper and remands the case back to state Court.
May 13, 2008	Plaintiff files a motion to remand, as the removal was untimely. Defendants AXS Charge and Dev8 Entertainment files a motion to vacate judgment claiming that they were never served and they just learned about it. They deny being alter-egos of Liquid Minds.
April 17, 2008	Another motion to amend the judgment to include punitive damages, but included the financial information. Plaintiff also asked the judge to downward correction to the attorney fee award as the incorrect multiplier was used. The judge did reduce the attorney fee award, but denied the punitive damage award. The Court advised Plaintiff to use more recent financial data and submit that data to Department 99.
April 16, 2008	Defendants filed the notice of removal with the State Court. It apparently arrive in the Court on April 16th, but didn't get processed for at least another day.
April 16, 2008	Filed a motion to amend the judgment, to include CAN-SPAM damages and punitive damages. The judge granted CAN-SPAM damages, but did not include punitive damages. The portion of the Court file with the financial data to support punitive damages was not in the Courtroom. The judgment is now $1.9M.
April 14, 2008	Defendants filed a removal in Federal Court, but have not served this notice on the state Court or Plaintiff.
April 10, 2008	Default judgment entered in the amount of $1.2M for Silverstein.
December 21, 2007	Obtained temporary injunction preventing Defendants from transferring their assets outside the ordinary course of business. This was done because in a prior case, a Court ruled that Defendants transferred assets to avoid the enforcement of a judgment.
September 21, 2007	Default entered against ALL Defendants.
August 16, 2007	Motion to consolidate, case deemed related to BC340643 and BC351414 and all future proceedings shall be heard heard in Department 47.
August 1, 2007	Filed the third spam lawsuit against them.

Another William Silverstein site. Copyright © 2002-2009 William Silverstein. All rights reserved.

This site is copyrighted material and its use is subject to non-exclusive license. If you do not agree to the terms of this license, leave this site immediately, or you are bound by the terms of the license. Your use of this site signifies your agreement to be bound by the terms of this license. The use of this site is free for personal and non-commercial use - particularly for those wish to learn about and protect the rights of employees and those who oppose their abuse by employers and large corporations, but there are significant fees charged for certain other uses. There is a significant fee for John Du Wors, any member of the law firm Newman Dichter LLP, any member of the law firm Newman&Newman LLP, anyone working on behalf of, in conjunction with, or under the control of John Du Wors, or worked for in the past, on the behalf of any attorney or legal department working on behalf of Mattel, Microsystems Software, Surf Control, or any related corporation.

This page are the opinions of William Silverstein based on facts and information provided to him. This is not to be construed as legal advice. Mattel is the manufacturer of Barbie, Matchbox, and Hot Wheels. This site is neither approved nor endorsed by Mattel. All trademarks belong to their respective owners.

Your use of this site acknowledges that you waive for yourself, your client, and your employer any and all claim against Silverstein for any action that relating to this site. If you don't agree to this, leave this site immediately. Your use of this site signifies your acceptance of these terms in this paragraph and the terms of use for the_ site. Assume that any email going to the barbieslapp.com domain will be going to a California resident and to a fax machine. All e-mail going to this domain is being handled by a California e-mail service provider using servers in California that prohibit unsolicited commercial e-mail.