% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Calmare Therapeutics Incorporated Message Board

  • rrtzrealmd rrtzrealmd Sep 28, 2011 1:22 PM Flag

    Hi-ho!...Hi-ho!'s back to court...

    ...we go, go go:

    3: 11-cv-00922-AWT
    Defendant. SEPTEMBER 7,2011
    Defendant AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION ("AA") requests that
    a status conference be scheduled in the above matter. Simultaneous with the filing
    of this motion, AA has also filed a Motion for Extension of Time seeking a thirty
    (30) day extension, up to and including October 10, 2011, to file a motion to dismiss
    or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint.
    This case concerns an arbitration arising from an employment contract
    between Plaintiff and John B. Nano. On June 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Complaint
    and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Among other things, Plaintiff sought
    preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in the form of the removal and
    replacement of the arbitrator. According to the Complaint, the arbitration was

    scheduled to continue on June 9 and 10, 2011. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion
    for Temporary Restraining Order on June 8, the same day it was filed. (Dckt. No.
    9). Simultaneously, the Court issued a scheduling order, which requires AA to file
    a motion to dismiss by September 8,2011. (Dckt. No.6).
    On June 28, 2011, the Court sought to schedule a telephone conference to
    discuss the case. Then counsel for Plaintiff, Robert Mitchell, responded that it
    would be preferable to wait until new counsel appears on behalf of Plaintiff, which
    he expected would occur shortly. On July 13, 2011, Robert A. Horowitz appeared
    on behalf of Plaintiff. On August 25, 2011, Mr. Mitchell filed a Motion to Withdraw
    Appearance, which the Court granted on August 26. There has been no additional
    activity and the status conference has not been rescheduled. On August 17, 2011,
    Lissa J. Paris, counsel for AA, wrote the Court to request that the status
    conference be rescheduled.
    AA requests that the Court reschedule the status conference so that the
    parties may discuss the status of this case and the underlying arbitration with the
    Court. AA believes that an award was issued in the underlying arbitration. This
    matter may be moot.", my!!...I wonder how CTT will respond...well, let me guess -- they won't!...we're now approaching FIVE MONTHS since CTT made a TOTAL FOOL of itself by filing suit against the "AA" and they STILL haven't seen fit to say ONE WORD publicly about it...

    ...and they still haven't indicated their plans now that Nano has been awarded his dough...maybe Johnnie needs to get a new public relations person on the job...

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • There is also the possibility that the legal fees, if not the award are covered by insurance.

    • Looks to me like CTT had a valid beef against the arbiter. But here is what else it looks like.

      Nano won the arbitration. The $700k or so that the company put aside is still there to pay Nano. It is already expensed.

      The lawyers fighting to preserve the $700k or so accumulated a lot of bills, probably approaching that same 700k amount. The company expensed that and paid those bills.

      The company probably has a good argument on getting the AAA (not AMA) judgment set aside, but they dont even want to hire (pay) attorneys to do that. Therefore, they go unrepresented in an ongoing lawsuit. The prior attorneys probably thought they could get paid with the Nano money - since the chance of it disappearing has increased, they want cash now. Who wouldn't?

      The company is sitting on a major opportunity. It might be a major distraction to defocus. Calmare clinical studies and thoughtful analysis of the costs of competitive therapies for each clinical market segment might yield a far greater return for shareholders than legal efforts against the awful former CEO.

      No way Nano deserves a penny, and he might use some of that money to try to damage the company. But the company's charter is to enhance shareholder value, not provide justice. If shareholders object, those that bought during the Nano era can file a class action. They have a case.

    • The court took the approach that it would not interfere until the process ended since there might be a possible outcome that would lead CTT to withdraw the suit.

      I suspect you are naive about court procedures other than traffic tickets and maybe, if we are to believe what others have posted about your persona in rating women of the night, an expert on what happens to johns (customers) when caught in the same net as the girls.

    • What was the amount of the award?