Tauriga Sciences Inc (TAUG)

[diannedawn]

If you read the court docs it is clear...TAUG...
which is Seth Shaw, his BOD, his "consultants", and attorneys are the dishonest ones here...

"Defendants have mediated, waived service, filed the Motion to Dismiss without seeking an extension, afforded Plaintiff an extension for its opposition, engaged in numerous discussions with Plaintiff to transfer the case, and filed motions
for protective orders as well as making a substantial document production in very short order. Each of these independent actions is an example of the Defendants’ efforts to further this case towards resolution through a trial on the merits in the appropriate court."

What has TAUG done?

They perhaps share in the blame for the lack of independence...
THEY EITHER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.

They filed a lawsuit when they KNEW they were REQUIRED to go through mediation FIRST....
"1. Plaintiff filed this case on November 4, 2015 (Docket No. 1). Prior to the commencement of suit Plaintiff’s counsel was specifically informed of the pre-suit mediation clause in Plaintiff’s engagement agreement with Defendant Cowan, Gunteski & Co., but nevertheless proceeded to file suit. The Complaint (at ¶ 7) falsely alleged that “all conditions precedent to the filing of this action, if any, have been performed or otherwise waived.”
2. On December 1, 2015, the Court set a November 7, 2016, trial term (Docket No. 11).
3. The Plaintiff moved to stay the case on December 29, 2015 (Docket No. 14) in order to permit the parties to conduct a contractually required mediation. Prior to that time, counsel had agreed to defer service of the summons and complaint until completion of the mediation."

They did not cooperate during mediation...
"4. The parties mediated the case in February, 2016, in New York City. The mediator requested that the Plaintiff produce various documents needed in order to continue the mediation. The Plaintiff failed to do so."

They LIED...
"6. On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff moved to terminate the stay and requested that the trial term be re-set (Docket No. 20). While the Plaintiff’s motion stated that it was served on all parties, it was never in fact ever served on the Defendants. Contrary to the statements in Paragraph 5 of the motion, Plaintiff’s, not Defendants’ counsel, in fact filed the waivers of service, and as a result, the Defendants did not receive a CM/ECF notice of the filing."
"a first motion to reschedule the trial term filed by the Plaintiff prior to the Defendants’ appearance, and without notice to the Defendants (contrary to the certificate of service)."

They made agreements and then reneged...
"15. Counsel held a telephone conference on Friday, July 29, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. During the conference Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Plaintiff consented to the transfer of venue to the District of New Jersey. The parties agreed that Plaintiff’s counsel would draft and circulate the transfer stipulation while Defendants’ counsel would draft the proposed confidentiality agreement that was also discussed during the call. Thereafter the parties exchanged drafts of a stipulation transferring this case to the District of New Jersey.2
16. Defendants were led to believe that Plaintiff had agreed to transfer this case, thereby mooting the Motion to Dismiss or the need to proceed with discovery in this court. On August 17, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed his legal assistant, copying Defendants’ counsel, instructing her to file the consent order containing Defendants’ revisions thereby transferring venue to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, where the Defendants reside and where the operative acts and omissions are alleged to have occurred."

Here is another thing TAUG failed to ever file properly...
"On July 21, 2016, the parties conducted their Rule 26(f) conference within the time required by Local Rule 16.1(b).
10. Rule 26(d)(1) provides that discovery may not commence until the parties have held their Rule 26(f) conference.
11. The parties exchanged drafts of their Rule 26(f) conference statement between July 21, 2016, and July 25, 2016, (Defendants provided the final draft, to which Plaintiff’s counsel never responded). Defendants understood that Plaintiff’s counsel would file the Rule 26(f) conference statement, however it appears it was never filed."

AND THIS IS WHAT WAS IN IT...
THIS is what Cowan purposed...
"The Defendants’ most recent draft of the 26(f) conference statement, recognizing the complexity of this matter and the need for significant discovery, proposed that all discovery be completed by July 22, 2017, with Plaintiff’s expert’s reports due on May 21, 2017, Defendants’ reports on June 30th and an August 5, 2017 cut-off date for potentially dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel never objected to the Defendants’ proposed dates."

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY...LOOK AT WHAT TAUG PURPOSED...
"Plaintiff did not object to Defendants’ most recent draft of the 26(f) conference statement. Plaintiff proposed that the discovery completion deadline be April 7, 2017 in its draft of the 26(f) conference statement"

Neither was ever filed, and Cowan let it go BECAUSE BY THEN, TAUG HAD AGREED TO TRANSFER THE VENUE....
BUT BEING THE DISHONEST CREEPS THAT THEY ARE...THEY RENEGED.

WOULD YOU WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH TAUG???
WOULD YOU TRUST THEM???
LOOKS TO ME LIKE THEIR WORD IS NOT WORTH DIDDLYSQUAT!
BUT WE KNEW THAT ALREADY FROM THE PAST YEAR+ AND ALL THE CRAP THAT HAS HAPPENED.

And what about this COURT???
A Judge that is dragging her feet and failing to rule for months on a rather critical Motion???
And procedures that are perhaps not being correctly followed???
"On May 10, 2016, the Court entered its Order Setting Status Conference, Calendar Call, and Trial Date and Order of Reference to Magistrate (Docket No. 22), which provided that Magistrate Judge Brannon would conduct a “Pre-Trial Conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” and further provided that the trial term could be re-set by Magistrate Judge Brannon prior to the Pre-Trial Status Conference scheduled for December 7, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. Defendants do not believe that the “Pre-Trial Conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” was ever held."

and this BULLSHIT about Cherry Bakeart???
LOL...
"As noted in the Motion to Dismiss, the complaint lacks any allegation which would support either personal jurisdiction or venue in this diversity action. The sole allegation concerning either is that the New Jersey based Defendants “knew that Tauriga was a Florida corporation and, thus, would subject itself to venue [sic] in Florida in the event of controversy or litigation” (complaint, Docket Entry 1, at paragraphs 3-5).
Plaintiff’s opposition sought to confer jurisdiction not on any acts of the Defendants, but rather the residence of a third-party, the independent accounting firm of Cherry Bekaert, LLP, that provided valuation services in connection with the 2014 audit, services which are not relevant to the claims asserted in the Complaint. Plaintiff’s opposition never addressed Defendants’ motion asserting improper venue."

GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND MAKE A RULING JUDGE ROBIN!!!

I think it would be funny if she denies the trial date reset...
I think that would give Cowan ample reason to get her removed.
"At the telephonic scheduling conference and discovery hearing conducted on September 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Brannon set the discovery cut-off for October 7, 2016, just 29 days thereafter. Magistrate Judge Brannon also set the dispositive motions deadline for October 21, 2016. Magistrate Judge Brannon acknowledged that the discovery cutoff did not permit time even to hand-deliver a set of written discovery, and recommended that if either party felt more time was necessary for discovery, that such party should file a motion directed to Your Honor to re-set the trial term, followed by a motion directed to him to revise the schedule.
The discovery schedule, set at the first substantive conference in this matter, was not established until 29 days before the current close of discovery, insufficient time for the Defendants to propound any written discovery, and insufficient time to schedule and conduct all but one of the several third-party depositions which are necessary in this case. The deadline for dispositive motions and motions in limine falls four (4) days before the deadline for the parties to disclose expert witnesses. As this case is likely to require significant expert testimony, this deadline effectively precludes any motions with respect to expert witnesses."

"LEGAL STANDARD
29. Defendants’ Motion to Reschedule Trial Term (the “Motion”) is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b) and Local Rule 7.6 which permit a party to seek a continuance of a trial date. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considers: 1) the extent of movant’s diligence in its efforts to ready its defense prior to the date set for trial, 2) the extent to which granting the continuance would have inconvenienced the court and the non-movant, including the witnesses, and 3) the extent to which movant might have suffered harm as a result of the district court’s denial, in deciding whether a district court’s denial of a motion to continue constitutes an abuse of discretion. Perlman v. Delisfort-Theodule, 541 Fed. Appx. 846, 849 (11th Cir. 2012). The affidavit of Ronald S. Herzog is submitted as Exhibit A in support of the Motion in compliance with the Local Rule and is fully incorporated herein."

TIC TOC WHAT TO DO???
ROTFLYAO

https://www.scribd.com/document/325537406/DEFENDANTS-MOTION-TO-RESCHEDULE-TRIAL-TERM
https://www.scribd.com/document/325537112/AFFIDAVIT-OF-RONALD-S-HERZOG-IN-SUPPORT-OF-MOTION-TO-RESCHEDULE-TRIAL-TERM
and the John Cesario letter...lol...
https://www.scribd.com/document/323248950/38-6-exhibit