Writ Media Group Inc. (WRIT)

[Rustler]

WTH??? How did you possibly come to the conclusion that the press released cited means NOTHING?? WRIT wasted valuable dollars (e.g., motions like this often run up to $5K or more based on California attorneys' legal fees) on a frivolus motion, which not only put the status of the company into question (e.g., no WRIT executives work at the only listed address for the company) but also caused WRIT to receive a swift kick-in-the-ass (and great disdain) from the judge - along with a concordant though abnormally early setting of a trial date to ensure the lawsuit (and attorneys' fees) will drag on for months to come!!! This news meant and means a great deal of bad ju-ju for WRIT!!!! (Far from meaning "nothing.") See, e.g.:

TRIAL DATE SET FOR FORMER SHAREHOLDER'S LAWSUIT AGAINST WRIT; WRIT ALSO LOSES DISINGENIOUS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 4, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Private investor, George Sharp, who has filed a civil action (Los Angeles County Division of California Superior Court Case No. BC461550) for Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, violation of California Corporations Code Section 25400, and violations of the California Business and Professions Codes 17200 (Unfair Business Practices) and 17500 (False Advertising) against Writers' Group Film Corp., Inc. ("Writers' Group") (Pink Sheets:WRIT), its wholly owned subsidiary Front Row Networks, Inc ("Front Row"), and its current and former officers, announced today that a date of April 30, 2012 has been set for a jury trial [by Plaintiff Sharp against Defendant WRIT].

The California Superior Court set the trial date following a hearing on a failed procedural motion brought by Defendants Writers' Group, Front Row and CEO and President, John Diaz, (collectively, "WRIT") to quash the service of the complaint filed in this case. In ruling against WRIT, the Honorable Judge Amy Hogue lamented the fact that, "a lot of energy and money was expended" [wasted by WRIT], in bringing this needless motion. Legal counsel for WRIT, Hamrick & Evans, [filed the subject motion and] argued that [the Plaintiff could not legally provide or serve WRIT] at the [particular] address listed as the corporate office, namely, 8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 8200, Beverly Hills, California. Judge Hogue called the argument "disingenuous", as both Writers' Group and Front Row filed that address with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Judge questioned Writers' Group and Front Row for not having registered an Agent for Service of Process as required by the State of California. Within his opposition, Mr. Sharp claimed that he would not have had to avail himself of the right to substitute service had the Defendants complied with the law.

Judge Hogue also agreed with the Plaintiffs representation that under the California Code of Civil Procedure, substitute service of [WRIT proved] reasonable, in spite of claims [by WRIT's legal counsel] that [WRIT's executive of record] maintains no presence at the company's only known office. [WTH?] The Plaintiff, Mr. Sharp, who won this motion and represents himself without legal counsel, commented, "What was the sense of spending the Defendants' limited resources on such a frivolous motion? If the Defendants are so eager to 'actively contest' the lawsuit, as Mr. Diaz has claimed, and 'expect to be fully exonerated', then why try and argue service which can only delay the proceedings?" In a nod to his supporters, Mr. Sharp continued, "Many of you have asked to join me in this litigation. While I appreciate your kind words with respect to my efforts, I am not an attorney and therefore cannot offer to add Plaintiffs to my complaint or provide legal advice, except to say that you should seek the counsel of an attorney."

CONTACT: George Sharp
[e-mail]
[phone]