I wish I knew how you know all this stuff :o)
The mediation order was Document #15 in the case.
Case3:11-cv-01452-EDL Document16 Filed06/28/11.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
AND PROPOSED ORDER
Excerpts:
1. A brief description of the events underlying the action:
This case involves two “penny” stock transactions that occurred in the Spring of 2010.
Defendant Williams orally agreed to sell and Plaintiff Roth orally agreed to buy, in two separate
transactions that occurred on separate dates, 1,000,000 shares of CDIV stock at .30 cents per share and
1,000,000 shares of LUXI stock at .30 cents per share. Roth has paid the $600,000.00. The parties
dispute the purpose and terms of these transactions.
2. The principal factual issues that the parties dispute:
A. The purpose and terms of the transactions.
B. Who was the offeror and who was the offeree.
C. The time for performance .
D. Whether or not Plaintiff agreed to participate in a “float lock down” investment strategy.
E. The amount of Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
F. The cause of Plaintiff’s alleged damages
3. The principal legal issues that the parties dispute:
A. Whether a valid waiver has been provided to Defendants by Plaintiff or his agent that would
pertain to the subject transactions.
B. Whether Defendants Harvey (erroneously sued as “Wood-Harvey”) and First in Awareness, LLC
are proper defendants in this action.
C. Whether a “float lock down” is illegal and/or contrary to Securities and Exchange laws.
D. Whether Plaintiff assumed any risks involved in the transactions.
E. Whether Plaintiff caused any loss he sustained on the transactions.
F. Whether Defendants have waived any objection to in personam jurisdiction in California by
Defendants’ appearance in this action.
G. Who bore legal responsibility for delivery of the shares at issue.
H. Whether the certificate that was provided to Plaintiff was in the agreed form.
4. The other factual issues [e.g., service of process, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction
or venue] that remain unresolved for the reasons stated below and how the parties propose to
resolve those issues:
Whether or not Defendants have minimum contacts with the forum for purposes of in personam
jurisdiction. Defendants propose to make a timely motion to dismiss unless they are prepared to waive
jurisdiction; Plaintiff contends in personam jurisdiction arguments have been waived.
5. The parties that have not been served and the reasons: None.
6. The additional parties that the below-specified parties intend to join and the intended time
frame for such joinder:
Defendants contemplate a possible counter-claim that could include new parties as claimants.
Defendants expect to resolve this issue within 120 days, depending on the facts that unfold in their further
investigation and initial discovery.
CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR TRIAL
7. The parties previously consented to assignment of this case to a United States Magistrate Judge for
trial.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
8. The parties already have been ordered to mediation upon their agreement, to be completed within
90 days.
DISCLOSURES
9. The parties have made their initial disclosures, including a list of currently identified witnesses,
and have produced documents.
DISCOVERY & MOTIONS
10. The parties were unable agree to a discovery plan. The Court orders as follows:
TRIAL SCHEDULE
11. The parties request a trial date as follows: April ___, 2012
12. The parties expect that the trial will last for 5-7 court days
Summing up.
The mediation plan (fun for the board for the couple hours it was kicked around) is in the crapper.
The above order is a PROPOSED order, presented by all parties to the judge for a signature.
That's the way I understand it anyway.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
