I was also concerned the CA could be something of a wrench in the machine and could cause delays in progress. However, this is not an open ended problem. A timeline for resolution was recently stipulated as follows:
1. Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint no later than February 24, 2014;
2. Plaintiff shall file his opposition, if any, to defendants’ response no later than March 26, 2014;
3. Defendants shall file any reply no later than April 15, 2014;
4. The parties shall request a hearing on May 5 or May 19, 2014, or the next available mutually-convenient hearing date.
I am not a legal expert, but my reading of the pleadings suggests that this will be over as of the May hearing date. The Second Amended Complaint appears to be in flagrant defiance of the Judge's observations at the November 2013 hearing. It simply rehashes the material in the First Amended Complaint, which the Judge already ruled to be insufficient to establish a cause of action. As Bungler observed in earlier posts, "the second amended complaint has more value as birdcage liner than stating a cause of action." Further, he suggested that judicial sanctions are appropriate. One hopes that the Judge will share this sentiment upon being presented with what is essentially the same complaint that he already threw out twice.
A specific concern of mine was that the CA might serve as an impediment to financing on the theory that banks and/or partners might have reservations in the face of an unquantified potential liability, and that they might elect to wait for a final disposition before jumping in. However, this concern (if even valid in the first place) is now vitiated by the recent round of ATM and Series E financing. The company now has a war chest of funds that will easily propel it past the May hearing any other delays in the intervening time. All imo, of course. More qualified legal commentary is welcomed.
