I hate to insult anyone's intelligence, but the supposed "legal analysis" of CTIX's position with regard to Rosen from the other board is dead wrong. I'm sure everyone already realizes that, but just in case:
It's a normal part of legal procedure for one side (or both sides) to send a letter to the other side, saying "you don't have a leg to stand on, withdraw your case." In this PARTICULAR instance, this is a "demand letter" asking for a specific remedy (withdraw your phony case), and giving the consequences if they don't -- the possibility of sanctions. As is typical, CTIX's lawyers spell out exactly WHY the Rosen firm doesn't have a case, and why CTIX believes it will prevail. You can't just send a letter saying "you're wrong, withdraw," you have to give compelling reasons.
I've seen more than just the most recent poster claim that the case will proceed to a trial. Nonsense. The New York court has no jurisdiction because CTIX has no operations in New York. The case should have been filed in Massachusetts. Besides that, the evidence that the Rosen firm did no due diligence is strong. Courts don't want to waste their time on nonsense suits, and the Rosen suit is clearly based on easily refuted lies from an anonymous guy on the internet. There is no basis in fact for this case to go to trial, and a judge (who will always be looking for a reason to dismiss a case so that s/he doesn't have to waste time on it in our overburdened legal system) will read the pleadings and dismiss it.
As far as sanctions, the poster elsewhere claims it's risky for CTIX to ask for sanctions, because if no sanctions are placed on Rosen, it could rebound on CTIX to be sanctioned. Nonsense. This would happen only if CTIX filed for sanctions with no compelling evidence -- and probably not even then -- but CITX has an overwhelming body of evidence to support its contention. To be sanctioned one has to commit egregrious misconduct, like, for instance, filing a bogus lawsuit, knowing that there is no foundation of fact for it. The Ashcroft Firm has a large body of evidence that their client is in the right, and any reasonable attorney would come to that conclusion and defend CTIX from the Rosen suit, and demand that the suit be withdrawn. Reasonable conduct = no possible sanctions.
It is VERY unlikely that Rosen is going to want to take this as far as a preliminary hearing. They are at risk of losing their entire business, because CTIX can present a pattern of behavior. If a judge finds that they systematically pursue a corporate policy of filing frivolous lawsuits, they can indeed be sanctioned for that IN ADDITION TO the CTIX suit, and those sanctions include not only fines, but the possibility of lawyers being barred from practice for a period of time.
There is little risk to CTIX, especially because CTIX can also petition to be repaid for legal fees incurred in doing this.
Remember that Rosen is a law firm. If they are at all competent (NOT a given), they have to be well aware that what they did is not up to the standard of professional responsibility that is freely available for all to read online. They would be extremely foolish to continue on this suicidal course.
It's a normal part of legal procedure for one side (or both sides) to send a letter to the other side, saying "you don't have a leg to stand on, withdraw your case." In this PARTICULAR instance, this is a "demand letter" asking for a specific remedy (withdraw your phony case), and giving the consequences if they don't -- the possibility of sanctions. As is typical, CTIX's lawyers spell out exactly WHY the Rosen firm doesn't have a case, and why CTIX believes it will prevail. You can't just send a letter saying "you're wrong, withdraw," you have to give compelling reasons.
I've seen more than just the most recent poster claim that the case will proceed to a trial. Nonsense. The New York court has no jurisdiction because CTIX has no operations in New York. The case should have been filed in Massachusetts. Besides that, the evidence that the Rosen firm did no due diligence is strong. Courts don't want to waste their time on nonsense suits, and the Rosen suit is clearly based on easily refuted lies from an anonymous guy on the internet. There is no basis in fact for this case to go to trial, and a judge (who will always be looking for a reason to dismiss a case so that s/he doesn't have to waste time on it in our overburdened legal system) will read the pleadings and dismiss it.
As far as sanctions, the poster elsewhere claims it's risky for CTIX to ask for sanctions, because if no sanctions are placed on Rosen, it could rebound on CTIX to be sanctioned. Nonsense. This would happen only if CTIX filed for sanctions with no compelling evidence -- and probably not even then -- but CITX has an overwhelming body of evidence to support its contention. To be sanctioned one has to commit egregrious misconduct, like, for instance, filing a bogus lawsuit, knowing that there is no foundation of fact for it. The Ashcroft Firm has a large body of evidence that their client is in the right, and any reasonable attorney would come to that conclusion and defend CTIX from the Rosen suit, and demand that the suit be withdrawn. Reasonable conduct = no possible sanctions.
It is VERY unlikely that Rosen is going to want to take this as far as a preliminary hearing. They are at risk of losing their entire business, because CTIX can present a pattern of behavior. If a judge finds that they systematically pursue a corporate policy of filing frivolous lawsuits, they can indeed be sanctioned for that IN ADDITION TO the CTIX suit, and those sanctions include not only fines, but the possibility of lawyers being barred from practice for a period of time.
There is little risk to CTIX, especially because CTIX can also petition to be repaid for legal fees incurred in doing this.
Remember that Rosen is a law firm. If they are at all competent (NOT a given), they have to be well aware that what they did is not up to the standard of professional responsibility that is freely available for all to read online. They would be extremely foolish to continue on this suicidal course.
