NoPaypal
You are not logged in! [ LOGIN ] or [ REGISTER ]
NoPaypal [NEW] Lawsuits And Legal Discussion Thread: Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW) -- Page 1 | Jump To: 

Sender Message
Thread: Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 03-10-2009 07:57
  Reply



HEARING: April 1, 2009,

Paypal's motion for a protective order will be heard on April 1, 2009. I served Paypal with my opposition papers. Paypal is trying to bar the deposition of Scott Thompson, Paypal President. However, the law states that it is an "extraodinary" ruling to bar a deposition from a person who has relevant information. And that no high level executive is immune from a deposition. Paypal's own attorneys were NOT confident that they could prevent the deposition let alone delay it.

The good thing we have on our side is that Scott Thompson is NOT your ordinary President who performs administrative duties. Mr. Thompson was Paypal's "chief technology office" and that gives him superior and relevant personal knowledge to the allegations in the complaint. It would be very surprising to me to see the court bar his deposition; but we will see the outcome and the reasoning soon.

Scott Thompson will be deposed on April 6, 2009 in San Jose, California

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 03-10-2009 07:47
  Reply



UNBELIEVABLE!,


The U.S. District Court in San Jose FAILED to accept their mail from me on February 6, 2009 from the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal service left them a notice; but the Court failed to pick up their mail or have it re-delivered. The mail contained my motion to compel. The Court has now put the blame on me. Judge Seeborg issued an order on March 6, 2009 stating that I did NOT follow the local rules in filing the motion with the court on time. But for the negligence of the District Court in failing to accept the mail on February 6, 2009 during working hours, I would have NOT been late. The court wants me to re-file the motion. Go figure.

This is one of the most unbelievable behaviors I have ever seen from a U.S. District Court. In my 14 years working in the legal industry, I have never seen a U.S. District court NOT accept its mail during working hours. The U.S. District Court interferred with a pending lawsuit and then wants to pass the blame. This is unacceptable behavior. Especially coming from a U.S. District Court..


Nevertheless, Paypal has sent me confidential communications today. I am unable to disclose its content; but I will let you know that I will NOT settle with Paypal UNLESS Paypal agrees to terms that will protect ALL consumers from false positives.

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 03-07-2009 11:34
  Reply



Scott Thompson Depo,

I have read the law. The law states that it is absolutely an extreme act of prohibiting any person who has relevant information from being deposed. However, the court has a right to give "limited" protection to Paypal executives like Scott Thompson; but they CANNot prevent his deposition. For example, the court may allow low level employees to be deposed first and discovery tools to be used first before his depostion.

However, if it can be shown that Scott Thompson has "unque and superior knowledge" as the relevant facts, he MUST appear for a deposition. I am about to show the court that he does. If all goes well, Scott Thompson of Paypal will be deposed next month, April.

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 03-07-2009 11:32
  Reply



traderjack,

It was due to their negligence, or the negligence of the U.S.Postal Sevice in failing to place the notice in a proper place for the court. At least they have now accepted it.

 




traderjack
Registered User

From: N/A
Messages: 16
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 03-06-2009 10:29
  Reply



lawsuits, Did you get a response from the court as to why they did not pick up the mail at the PostOffice?

traderjack

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 03-06-2009 07:58
  Reply



HEARING: March 11, 2009,


The Motion to Compel Paypal to server a responsive answer to the interrogatories and to appear for a deposition was received by the courthouse yesterday from the U.S. Postal Service.

Here, I served a timely Motion to Compel on the Defendant and I mailed a timely original and a copy to the courthouse. It was the court's own fault for failing to pick up its own mail from its local San Jose postal office after the postal service gave it proper and timely notice. Therefore, I believe the March 11, 2009 return date for the motion to compel is on.

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 03-04-2009 09:57
  Reply



traderjack,

I remember a recent case in California that held unnoticed changes in a user-agreement were invalid. Paypal must send out email notices and cannot simply inform users that they have to come to the website and check for themselves. If you search Google, you should find the California case. I believe it was in 2007.

 




traderjack
Registered User

From: N/A
Messages: 16
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 02-27-2009 21:01
  Reply



traderjack, You know, I wonder if you have thought of, and I am sure you may have, when you get into the user agreement of PayPal, and are discussing the terms of the contract, whether you have asked them about the changes they make to the user agreement where they don't notify the users, and how that would affect the overall validity of the user agreement after an unnoticed change in the agreement was made. I know they make changes because I have pointed out errors they made and they were changed the next day!



traderjack

 




traderjack
Registered User

From: N/A
Messages: 16
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 02-27-2009 15:02
  Reply



lawsuits, MY, My, My , you must have made the clerk made that last time when you made her do something she didn't want to do!

I think I would ask for a written explanation , and an apology from the court, for this thing happening to you!

I would think that the court would have a regular run to the PO to pick up mail sent to a PO Box, but maybe they don't have a PO box.

Hey, perhaps Paypal was involved! LOL

traderjack

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 02-27-2009 09:17
  Reply



GOOD NEWS,

I just spoke with the supervisor, sookie, at the federal court. She called the post office. They told her since it has passed 15 days, they will send back the motion to me. She informed them not to send it back if they did not already. The post man said he will check.

I'm kinda of laughing right now because the situation is kinda funny.

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 02-27-2009 06:18
  Reply



UNBELIEVABLE!,


My Motion to Compel has been sitting in the San Jose, California post office since February 6, 2009.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the U.S. Post office attempted to deliver my motion to the court; but no one was in the office at 12:14pm PST. The post office left them a note informing them to contact the post office. However, the court clerk never did. So, my motion has been sitting in the post office since Feb. 6, 2009.

I called the court clerk yesterday to request that they contact their local post office to have them re-deliver their mail to them and the court clerk refused. Instead, she informed me to call the post office and request that they re-deliver the court's mail. The U.S. Post office informed me that I am NOT allowed to request the re-delivery of the court's mail. The court must call the post office themselves to claim their own mail. I called the court's supervisor, Sookie; but I haven't received a phone call back. I will call her again today. If she fails to contact the post office today, I have already prepared a letter to Judge Seeborg informing him that the court clerk refuses to claim the court's mail from their local post office.

This is one of the most unprofessional and ridiculous behaviors from a court clerk I have ever witnessed in my 14 years working with State and federal courts. The court clerk has an obligation to claim the court's mail from the post office. Especially when the post office and I have placed it on notice that its mail is sitting in their local post office waiting for them. This is the problem with dealing with small and out of the way courts. The clerks are lazy and lack knowledge of their obligations. Believe it or not, I had to recite law to the clerk last time just so she would issue me court signed subpeonas. I informed the supervisor that it is the court clerk's duty to prepare them and send them to me. She finally did. Geez.. Here in New York's federal court, we have attorneys working in the clerks office. I don't think San Jose has that.

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 02-24-2009 07:10
  Reply



traderjack,

Thanks. As you can see, Paypal is trying to do everything it can to avoid producing the requested evidence and to appear for a deposition. However, Paypal MUST by law comply. It's all about working the law. Paypal will eventually have to appear or they will lose big time by default.

I am already preparing for the VIDEO deposition of Paypal's executives. Paypal will try and stay the discovery. However, case law shows that the courts rarely grant a stay of discovery when there is a "partial" motion to dismiss. Which means, Paypal has a chance in hell to stay discovery on their "partial" motion to dismiss. I am predicting that the judge will force Paypal to appear for the April 2009 noticed depositions. Also, I am getting myself ready for the TRIAL.

As for law school, I passed my contracts class.

 




traderjack
Registered User

From: N/A
Messages: 16
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 02-23-2009 14:17
  Reply



lawsuits, I can now breathe again, as I thought the thing had collapsed. I wish you success and wait, fully breathing , for the opposition papers to be submitted and your response. Hope the law school is going well for you!
Traderjack

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 02-23-2009 08:41
  Reply



UPDATE,


Paypal has until Wednesday to submit their opposition papers to the motion to compel them to appear for a deposition and provide the requested answer to the interrogatories. This is going to be interesting. Especially since Paypal thinks they can stop discovery based on their "partial motion to dismiss". Case law shows that the courts rarely approve a stay of discovery when there is only a "partial" motion to dismiss.


POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

 




lawsuits
Moderator

From: N/A
Messages: 558
 Mehmet_v_Paypal Docket# 08-cv-01961 (RMW)
Sent: 02-07-2009 07:25
  Reply



_Elliott_,

Agreed. I cannot disclose what happened at the Early Neutral Evaluation when I traveled to San Francisco to meet with Paypal; but I can tell you that when Paypal wrote that my funds were quote "Indeed Fraudulent" that is defamation.

In Paypal's moving papers, paypal attempts to place a subjective interpretation on the words of their email; but that is not how the law of defamation works. The court will take the "plain" meaning of the words. The jury will read Paypal's email and give the words their plain meaning, which means Paypal defamed me because Paypal has already admitted that the funds came from my debit card and I didn't steal the money like it said I did.

 




1 - 15  16 - 30   31 - 45   46 - 60   61 - 62  Next


Statistics

Currently Online: 4 Guests Most ever: 152
Total number of messages: 78437
Total number of topics: 31645
Total number of registered users: 102967
This page was built together in: 1.2488 seconds

Make Your Own Website

Credit Card Processing

New PayPal Forums

PayPal Alternative

Free Shopping Cart Software