Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[Yolo]

"This court does not agree that a person or entity generally need not be served to become party. And even assuming the waiver of service of process can satisfy the requirement for service of process, appellant does not asset that such waiver occurred in this case."

Strike 1.

Yet you conveniently ignore the fact that the very next paragraph states:

Nevertheless, it does not appear that the underlying district court proceedings originated with the filing of a complaint and a service of process. Instead, it appears the district court action began with the filing of a motion to appoint a custodian. While it appears that the motion was served, it does not appear that any person or entity was served with process in accordance with NRAP 4 in this matter. It also does not appear that service of process is required for a stockholder to file a motion to appoint a custodian. See NRS 78.347. Accordingly, it is not clear if service of process was necessary to become a party in context of this appeal.

That's huge, IMO. Since there was never service of process in the case, requiring anyone to be served with process effectively prevents anyone from appealing. Which isn't likely. Assuming they started the case properly and it doesn't require service of process, then my hunch is that anyone can become a party without the service of process. Meaning Calasse can appeal.

Is new evidence admissible during an appeal? Nope case was tossed in lower court because the zebra ate the receipt. It's got to be in the court transcripts.

Well just remember that the declarations and other evidence were admitted in the district court proceedings. So no new evidence can be admitted during the appeal, but everything filed with the Request for Reconsideration is already admitted and is not considered "new."


I'm not sure why I'm even replying, I'm relaxing outside on a beautiful Memorial Day weekend. I hope everyone else has a stress free and beautiful weekend!