Posted On: 07/31/2014 8:55:22 AM
Post# of 2009
Going back through some of my notes and bookmarks, figured I would put them here, will probably be of more use here than there. You guys may have already seen some of these, and some may be new.
here is a win in court against a fraudulent investor back on April 27 2012.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020120427B66
Quote from above article.
"III. Conclusion
The Court FINDS Xun Energy, Inc. has stated claims upon which relief can be granted and DENIES Lia Kennedy's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16).
IT IS SO ORDERED".
And a foot note from the case.
1. Local Rule 7.1 requires a reply brief to be filed within fourteen days of the response. Kenendy's reply was untimely filed and again makes blanket statements without any support. The Reply brief throws more random facts at the Court without tying those facts to legal argument. Further, the dispute of facts is inappropriate for a Motion to Dismiss.
Scam companies tend to not file lawsuits!
xnrg
here is a win in court against a fraudulent investor back on April 27 2012.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020120427B66
Quote from above article.
"III. Conclusion
The Court FINDS Xun Energy, Inc. has stated claims upon which relief can be granted and DENIES Lia Kennedy's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16).
IT IS SO ORDERED".
And a foot note from the case.
1. Local Rule 7.1 requires a reply brief to be filed within fourteen days of the response. Kenendy's reply was untimely filed and again makes blanket statements without any support. The Reply brief throws more random facts at the Court without tying those facts to legal argument. Further, the dispute of facts is inappropriate for a Motion to Dismiss.
Scam companies tend to not file lawsuits!
xnrg
(0)
(0)
Good luck to all stockholders and stuckholders!
Scroll down for more posts ▼
