Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

VOOM sues Dish.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
177 replies to this topic

#161 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,702 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 31 May 2008 - 02:41 PM

FYI, before anyone accuses me of Voom bashing based on my post earlier today... Please note that I was disappointed to lose Voom in its entirety. I will miss many things from Voom, but I think the line was drawn in the sand a while back and that line was crossed and then someone came along and smoothed back over the sand so now it was like it never happened.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#162 OFFLINE   DustoMan

DustoMan

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 317 posts
Joined: Jul 16, 2005

Posted 31 May 2008 - 10:02 PM

LOL! "Fuzzy Math" making a come back!
Dusto
dustoman at gmail dot com

Echostar customer since longer then I can remember.
SlingLOADED VIP922 on 1080p Panasonic HDTV
VIP222 on Windows 7 Pro PC

#163 OFFLINE   Hound

Hound

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 891 posts
Joined: Mar 20, 2005

Posted 01 June 2008 - 07:38 AM

That would be good news for DISH ... Voom was denied the injunction they requested to stop DISH from ending the contract. Voom should have just followed through with the case in progress ... but it is obvious they were losing so they are trying a different tactic:D


Its all the same case. Cablevision lost the injunction motion because apparently the judge did not think that Cablevision would suffer irreparable harm that
could not be satisfied by a money damages remedy. But it is only one motion. The case goes forward and will be decided on an interpretation of the contract. There is obviously a question of fact. The facts will eventually be stipulated. A determination will have to be made based on the stipulated facts. Was there a
breach of contract, was the breach curable and what are the rights of both parties
under the contract when a breach occurs?

#164 OFFLINE   FitzAusTex

FitzAusTex

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 79 posts
Joined: Jan 30, 2007

Posted 01 June 2008 - 07:54 AM

That would be good news for DISH ... Voom was denied the injunction they requested to stop DISH from ending the contract. Voom should have just followed through with the case in progress ... but it is obvious they were losing so they are trying a different tactic.

It is my understanding that the injunction to prevent E* placing Voom into the HD Ultimate tier was denied, rather than stopping E* from ending the contract. Do I have this wrong?

#165 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,905 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 01 June 2008 - 11:05 AM

See http://www.dbstalk.c...661#post1583661

Voom's request was to prevent DISH from ending the contract:

"VOOM brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief and now moves for a preliminary injunction enjoining EchoStar from terminating the Affiliation Agreement."

They did not ask the court to force any particular tier placement.

In a line, the court said "Because VOOM failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, it is unnecessary to address a balancing of the equities. ... Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is denied."

The injunction was denied because Voom failed to demonstrate that they were likely to win the case ... not because of lack of irreparable harm.

#166 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,134 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 01 June 2008 - 02:15 PM

FYI, before anyone accuses me of Voom bashing based on my post earlier today... Please note that I was disappointed to lose Voom in its entirety. I will miss many things from Voom, but I think the line was drawn in the sand a while back and that line was crossed and then someone came along and smoothed back over the sand so now it was like it never happened.


Truth be told I miss EquatorHD, & FilmfestHD. However I can live without VOOM. I lived without it before HD so...................

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#167 OFFLINE   Hound

Hound

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 891 posts
Joined: Mar 20, 2005

Posted 02 June 2008 - 05:46 AM

See [url]http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1583661#post1583661[

In a line, the court said "Because VOOM failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, i

The injunction was denied because Voom failed to demonstrate that they were likely to win the case ... not because of lack of irreparable harm.


To file a successful preliminary injunction motion, NY law requires that the plaintiff show irreparable harm and no adequate remedy at law.
Furthermore when filing motions for a preliminary injunction or summary judgment, there cannot be a question of fact. Motions are not granted if there is a question of fact that needs to be determined through discovery and trial. The line from the ruling means that there is a question of fact that has to be determined at trial. It is not an indication either way of the merits of the case.

You do not know what will happen in these cases.
The chancess of success would have to be rated 50/50 for both parties.

#168 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,905 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 02 June 2008 - 12:07 PM

I trust what the judge wrote ... failure to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. There is no need to spin clear language and claim the injunction was refused for other reasons.

#169 OFFLINE   tedb3rd

tedb3rd

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 357 posts
Joined: Feb 02, 2006

Posted 03 June 2008 - 07:36 PM

I am getting a HD video camera. I will film 5 minutes of my 1-year-old being cute. I will sell that content to VOOM for $500,000. There--I just helped VOOM adhere to the contract. :)

Seriously... VOOM seems to be acting like a spoiled brat AND the dog that bites the hand that feeds it. When you have to sue to get a carrier to broadcast your channels... Hmmmm

VOOM used to be the big one because there wasn't anything else out there. Now, there is competition with other channels and VOOM has lost. ...classic case of competition for the consumer. Dish saved VOOM's !@# once and they don't seem interested in doing it again.

#170 OFFLINE   Hound

Hound

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 891 posts
Joined: Mar 20, 2005

Posted 04 June 2008 - 05:52 AM

I trust what the judge wrote ... failure to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits..


You are taking the judge's
ruling out of context. The standards are different for
motions and lawsuits. I am a licensed attorney in NY.

#171 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,905 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 04 June 2008 - 08:07 AM

You are taking the judge's
ruling out of context. The standards are different for
motions and lawsuits. I am a licensed attorney in NY.

The full text is posted ... no "context" problems here.

#172 OFFLINE   TexasAg

TexasAg

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 112 posts
Joined: May 27, 2008

Posted 04 June 2008 - 08:48 AM

Furthermore when filing motions for a preliminary injunction or summary judgment, there cannot be a question of fact.


Every first-year law student knows that summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no "substantial question of material fact" in a case. Could you please show us something saying that this is also the standard for a preliminary injunction in New York?

From my viewpoint, if a preliminary injunction can only be granted when there is no "question of fact," preliminary injunctions would only be granted in cases where summary judgment is appropriate, which appears to be wrong. And why is it that the no "question of fact" standard was ever mentioned in the denial of the preliminary injunction? The judge went through the "likelihood of irreparable harm" and "likelihood of success on the merits" requirements, but never mentions that there is a question of fact.
__________________
My personal opinions are just that. Don't rely on them - I could be Charlie Ergen's pool boy.

#173 OFFLINE   Hound

Hound

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 891 posts
Joined: Mar 20, 2005

Posted 04 June 2008 - 09:09 AM

The question of fact is whether Voom breached the contract. That will have to be determined at trial with discovery and stipulation of facts.

#174 OFFLINE   TexasAg

TexasAg

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 112 posts
Joined: May 27, 2008

Posted 04 June 2008 - 09:21 AM

The question of fact is whether Voom breached the contract. That will have to be determined at trial with discovery and stipulation of facts.


So you cannot cite any case saying that a preliminary injunction can only be issued when there in no "question of fact"? Because that is what you said: "when filing motions for a preliminary injunction ... there cannot be a question of fact."

In fact, let me quote from the denial of the preliminary injunction: "The existence of issues of fact no longer serve, of and by themselves, to defeat an application for a preliminary injunction". That appears to have been the law since at least 2001.
__________________
My personal opinions are just that. Don't rely on them - I could be Charlie Ergen's pool boy.

#175 OFFLINE   dgordo

dgordo

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,010 posts
Joined: Aug 29, 2004

Posted 04 June 2008 - 09:33 AM

A preliminary injunction standard is not based upon questions of fact.

“A decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is based on the district court's consideration of four factors: (1) the likelihood of the success on the merits; (2) irreperable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships between the parties; and (4) the public interest.”

#176 OFFLINE   Hound

Hound

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 891 posts
Joined: Mar 20, 2005

Posted 04 June 2008 - 10:40 AM

Question of fact is a component of likelihood of
success on the merits. If a question of fact exists, there is not likelihood of success on the merits. This dispute is a question of fact.

#177 OFFLINE   dgordo

dgordo

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,010 posts
Joined: Aug 29, 2004

Posted 04 June 2008 - 11:33 AM

With summary judgment there can be no questions of fact.

With an injunction, there can be unresolved questions of fact, but the court believes these will be resolved in favor of the party requesting the injunction.

#178 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,905 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 11 June 2008 - 02:26 PM

It took a while for this to be made public ... but here are some notes from May 13th.

Attached Files






Protected By... spam firewall...And...