Archives des forums MMO/MMORPG > Forums divers > La Taverne > Quelqu'un A Des Nouvelles De Meo
Quelqu'un A Des Nouvelles De Meo
Par Bhâal-Bhû-Trix le 21/12/2001 à 17:37:43 (#594710)
D'après mes dernières info Sierra était toujours en procès et malheureusement le développement du jeu avait été stoppé...
J'espère vivement qu'il reprendra bientôt car un MMORPG sur les terres du milieu, je signe tout de suite
Par Bhâal-Bhû-Trix le 22/12/2001 à 12:58:34 (#597716)
Par Glorinfeld le 22/12/2001 à 21:27:24 (#599487)
Par Mind le 22/12/2001 à 22:06:56 (#599666)
Sur le site officiel de MM3D, la dernière info que je vois est :UPDATE: Lawsuit Status
Tuesday, October 2, 2001 at 1:29 PM by Bridgette
MM3D has posted an update on the status of our lawsuit against Sierra and Mark Hood. - Bridgette We posted the update in our forum. You must be a registered forum member to view it.In the beginning, we filed in Ca. State court. Sierra claimed a jurisdiction issue and had the case removed to federal court in May of 2001. (Los Angeles, Ca.)
Current Info
U.S. District Court
Central District of California (Western Div.)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 01-CV-4690
MM3D Inc v. Sierra On-Line Inc, et al
Filed: 05/24/01
Assigned to: Judge Christina A. Snyder
Jury demand: Defendant
Nature of Suit: 190 (civil, breach of contract)
Jurisdiction: Diversity
The Timeline
I believe these dates are correct but they may be off by a day or two. Ive taken them from my personal notes. - Bridgette
05-24-01: The case was moved from State to Federal court.
06-11-01: They filed a motion to dismiss our claims.
06-18-01: We filed an opposition to their motion to dismiss.
06-25-01: They filed a response to our opposition filing.
07-03-01: Motion granted in part, denied in part. We were given leave to amend our complaint to fix it. (Note: We filed in State, not Federal, so we had to change our documents to meet the different Federal requirements.)
07-30-01: We filed an amended complaint and requested a jury trial.
08-16-01: They filed a motion to dismiss our amended (fixed) complaint. (The hearing date was set for 10am on 9-17-01)
08-30-01: We filed an opposition to their motion to dismiss.
09-10-01: They filed a response to our opposition.
09-17-01: Their motion to strike certain claims and motion to dismiss were denied by the court. (side note: They asked to have 4 claims dismissed out of the 11 we filed. All of our claims remained intact.)
Pas vu de trace de réglement à l'amiable.
Tu parles bien d'un second réglement à l'amiable ? Pas du premier qui s'était finalement soldé par une seconde action en justice de MM3D contre Sierra ?
alternative
Par ***caline*** le 23/12/2001 à 23:36:57 (#604336)
Par Glorinfeld le 24/12/2001 à 14:51:29 (#606347)
je te dirait que le reglement a l'amiable permet de continuer le dévellopement meme si le procès continue
JOL Archives 1.0.1
@ JOL / JeuxOnLine