Where did you find the information on the next court appearance and what is your opinion now of the eventual outcome of this case?
DISH -VS- VOOM - A Settlement has been reached!
- Thread starter orlmac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 309K
Where did you find the information on the next court appearance and what is your opinion now of the eventual outcome of this case?
There is probably a faster way, but after running a few searches here is where I located the information:
First, go to the NYS Unified Court System and seach by Pary Name "VOOM" or "EchoStar". You will see a list of all publically available documents filed with the court (I am still curious why EchoStar's CounterClaim is not listed).
As far as finding the 10/23/2008 court appearance, I went to the NYS Unified Court System eCourts WebCivil Supreme site, selected Party Search, and entered plaintiff VOOM and clicked the Find Case button, click on index number 600292/2008, and then Show All Appearances.
Last edited:
What counter suite? They matter was brought forward in the NY Courts and EchoStar filed a reply, or counter claim, with the court in response to VOOM's Compaint and Summons. I am simply pointing out EchoStar's documents are not publically available vial the courts website.
You are absolutely correct ijn that reagard. I am not certain but I think that tthe only docuemtns that can be viewed this way are documents which were actually filed using the system. If Echostar filed another way they would not be available this way.
i suppose that echostar might be hiding them from public view but there are likely other possible reasons for not filing electronically.
In fact when I look a the consent to Efiling form I see signatures for the plaintiff but not the defendendant. When I check other cases i see names and signatures for both parties.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fb...Hvperwu/YnjIHA/W2RpBzQ==&from=SearchDetailURL
Guys, thanks for the links to the Judge's decision denying the injunction, in which he specified the reason for the denial: lack of probability of success on the part of the plaintiff in the actual court case. Put differently, he thinks Echostar will win the case when it comes to trial because (a) Voom breached the agreement, and (b) Echostar did not waive its right to terminate the agreement based on a breach of that portion of the agreement (i.e., spending $100M annually on the "service"). The specified details were (a) Voom did not spend $100M or the required variant on the service, (b) the requirement could not be cured by spending in a subsequent year, and (c) Echostar did not waive its right to terminate.
The October 2008 date is a "performance conference" so the judge can find out how the discovery and interrogatories process is going; a deadline for that type of thing seems to be May of 2009 with the case to be heard shortly thereafter.
June or July of 2009 would seem to be a good end date on the trial and decision. I don't think Voom has the chance of a snowball in the Sahara of winning this. Throwing good money after a bad, bad decision to skimp on contract performance.
The decision also noted that Voom stated that DirecTv did not want their product.
Best regards, Fitzie
The October 2008 date is a "performance conference" so the judge can find out how the discovery and interrogatories process is going; a deadline for that type of thing seems to be May of 2009 with the case to be heard shortly thereafter.
June or July of 2009 would seem to be a good end date on the trial and decision. I don't think Voom has the chance of a snowball in the Sahara of winning this. Throwing good money after a bad, bad decision to skimp on contract performance.
The decision also noted that Voom stated that DirecTv did not want their product.
Best regards, Fitzie
One other detail of the judge's decision I found interesting was this: he found that irreparable harm would ensue about equally to both parties in the dispute. He apparently found reasonable the thought that Echostar would lose some goodwill with its customers by discontinuing the service, but Voom would ultimately only lose some money--the only real goodwill Voom had was that created by Dish carrying their service.
Fitzie
Fitzie
The "NO" stamp...
Well, so far it looks like EchoStar has pretty much denied all of VOOMs arguments (other than admitting to being a Colorado company) and provided no useful information other than asking the court to review the submitted artifacts. Oh, they did admit there was an "Interim Operating Agreement" struck on 28 April, 2005.
Well, so far it looks like EchoStar has pretty much denied all of VOOMs arguments (other than admitting to being a Colorado company) and provided no useful information other than asking the court to review the submitted artifacts. Oh, they did admit there was an "Interim Operating Agreement" struck on 28 April, 2005.
Interesting that Charlie and Chuckie had face-to-face meetings in Dec. 2007 and Jan. 2008, where Charlie laid down the law.
It does SEEM to answer one question we all had. That is whether VOOM was free to sell to other on something other than an all or nothing basis,. According to E* they were but woudl have had to offere the same terms to E*.
BTW E* also admited that they were a party to the agreement. They alo said that there was an April agreement for 10 channels and that the Nov agreement (the one being litigated) was for 15 channels (again this is according to E*)
BTW E* also admited that they were a party to the agreement. They alo said that there was an April agreement for 10 channels and that the Nov agreement (the one being litigated) was for 15 channels (again this is according to E*)
Interesting reading once you get to EchoStar's CounterClaim:
"12. Upon information and belief, Network has previously declined to take advantage of other distribution opportunities because entering into such agreements would require providing the same terms to EchoStar pursuant to the Agreement."
It's like we all thought (at least I mentioned)...that V* didn't break up the 15 channel lineup since E* would get the same deal. Both parties are to blame for this situation.
"12. Upon information and belief, Network has previously declined to take advantage of other distribution opportunities because entering into such agreements would require providing the same terms to EchoStar pursuant to the Agreement."
It's like we all thought (at least I mentioned)...that V* didn't break up the 15 channel lineup since E* would get the same deal. Both parties are to blame for this situation.
I am still reading it, but it looks like E* said VOOM was 10 channels (#10, page 17) when the agreement was signed, and not 15, and not 21. I am still reading the document.
Page 17 forward is the interesting part. Echostar is claiming that the 100million was for 10 channels spending not 21 or 15. Echostar is claiming VOOM only spend 59.1 and claimed an unsubstantiated (to Echostar) 12 million to CVC as shared expenses.
Echostar is seeking damages from VOOM now. I supposed they are trying to recover the 20% ownership loss from CVC.
Echostar is seeking damages from VOOM now. I supposed they are trying to recover the 20% ownership loss from CVC.
they said that the interim agreement was for 10, The problem is that is not what is being litigated so it si not worth much.
No wrong agreement 10 channels was the original agreement from may not the November 2005 agreemetn being litigated.
Page 17 paragraph 10 says the Nov 17 2005 agreement was 10 channels. Echostar is clearly claiming the agreement which included the 100 million (page 18 paragraph 13) for programming was for 10 channels.
