Luminiferous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 11:55 amJust found this from and interview back in the days of Sludge... Blotzer is credited on 3 songs the entire tenure of Ratt up until Infestation.. Anyone believe Blotzer ever wrote some "good ones?" And what were they?
“He's a guy who knows nothing about anything and now he thinks he know something about everything. Bobby's a prick. Give yourself some respect man and shut the fuck up! You're RUNNING the integrity of our music and band into the dirt.nly a drummer
usually...for some reason it’s the Bassist who acts like the idiot “leader”, but Bobby’s the biggest pos, egotistical, most expendable of that band, such a douche.
Who did write the hits...Robin and Juan? They did have some great songs, perfect for the time. Like most of the great bands their first three...including the EP were/are amazing.
Going by the credits I always got the impression that Warren, Robbin and Juan came up with the music and Juan and Pearcy wrote the lyrics and melodies.. Judging from what he wrote in his book, they were always fighting, so Blotzer was just lucky to be there as long as he was..
Case in point, since Ratt split and he was eventually fired, what band has approached him to join them that worked? None... even the Tatesryche thing never seen anything past a practice or two..
He had to put together a band of scabs who had to follow his every word to even get back out there.. and he blew THAT!
Luminiferous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:56 pmThere has been an update on the Blobster/Sherman saga... Judge added another $72,824.42 onto their tab for Juan and his attorney, making it $220,394.42 for Blobs and still $85,357.50 for Sherminator and his former law office.. TOTAL: $305,751.92
DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Court.
On November 9, 2016 this Court issued its Order Re: Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 181) in which it, inter alia, adjudicated liability in favor of Defendant Juan Croucier on the claims brought against him by Plaintiff WBS, Inc.
On June 7, 2017, the Court entered judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff WBS, Inc. (Docket No. 230).
On August 21, 2017, a Bill of Costs was entered, taxing costs in the amount of $1,465.72 in favor of Juan Croucier and against WBS, Inc. (Docket No. 244).
WBS, Inc. appealed and Juan Croucier cross-appealed. On March 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's rulings save the denial of Croucier's motion for attorneys' fees, and remanded the case for a further determination (Docket No. 229).
On April 4, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Mandate stating, "The judgment of this Court, entered March 07, 2019, takes effect this date[]" and taxing costs against WBS, Inc. and in favor of Juan Croucier in the amount of $572.20 (Docket No. 246).
On May 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $70,789.50 in favor of appellees/cross appellants Juan Carlos Croucier and Croucier Productions, Inc. and against appellant/cross-appellee WBS, Inc. and amending the Court's mandate (Docket No. 248).
On March 11, 2020 this Court issued an Order Re: Motion for Attorney Fees (Docket No. 255) in which it granted Croucier an award of fees against WBS, Inc. in the amount of $232,927.50 and found Plaintiff's counsel Drew Sherman and Adli Law Group P.C. jointly liable for $85,357 of that amount.
Pursuant to the above, Judgment in this case is hereby amended as follows:
1. WBS, Inc. (WBS), does not own the RATT trademarks, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 1383344, 1383345, 1368246, and 1368245, as those trademarks were never properly assigned to it from the RATT Partnership;
2. WBS, Inc's Complaint is dismissed with Prejudice as to all Defendants, and WBS, Inc. shall take nothing;
3. Judgment is entered in favor of Juan Croucier and against WBS, Inc. in the amount of $305,751.92, reflecting $303,717.00 in attorneys' fees and $2,034.92 in costs; and
4. It is further adjudged that Drew H. Sherman and Adli Law Group P.C. are jointly and severally liable to Juan Croucier for payment of $85,357.50 of the liability of WBS under this judgment.
VP Guitars wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:11 pm
Blobs continues to get hosed in court.
The courtroom is his dance floor!
Luminiferous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:56 pmThere has been an update on the Blobster/Sherman saga... Judge added another $72,824.42 onto their tab for Juan and his attorney, making it $220,394.42 for Blobs and still $85,357.50 for Sherminator and his former law office.. TOTAL: $305,751.92
DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Court.
On November 9, 2016 this Court issued its Order Re: Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 181) in which it, inter alia, adjudicated liability in favor of Defendant Juan Croucier on the claims brought against him by Plaintiff WBS, Inc.
On June 7, 2017, the Court entered judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff WBS, Inc. (Docket No. 230).
On August 21, 2017, a Bill of Costs was entered, taxing costs in the amount of $1,465.72 in favor of Juan Croucier and against WBS, Inc. (Docket No. 244).
WBS, Inc. appealed and Juan Croucier cross-appealed. On March 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's rulings save the denial of Croucier's motion for attorneys' fees, and remanded the case for a further determination (Docket No. 229).
On April 4, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Mandate stating, "The judgment of this Court, entered March 07, 2019, takes effect this date[]" and taxing costs against WBS, Inc. and in favor of Juan Croucier in the amount of $572.20 (Docket No. 246).
On May 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $70,789.50 in favor of appellees/cross appellants Juan Carlos Croucier and Croucier Productions, Inc. and against appellant/cross-appellee WBS, Inc. and amending the Court's mandate (Docket No. 248).
On March 11, 2020 this Court issued an Order Re: Motion for Attorney Fees (Docket No. 255) in which it granted Croucier an award of fees against WBS, Inc. in the amount of $232,927.50 and found Plaintiff's counsel Drew Sherman and Adli Law Group P.C. jointly liable for $85,357 of that amount.
Pursuant to the above, Judgment in this case is hereby amended as follows:
1. WBS, Inc. (WBS), does not own the RATT trademarks, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 1383344, 1383345, 1368246, and 1368245, as those trademarks were never properly assigned to it from the RATT Partnership;
2. WBS, Inc's Complaint is dismissed with Prejudice as to all Defendants, and WBS, Inc. shall take nothing;
3. Judgment is entered in favor of Juan Croucier and against WBS, Inc. in the amount of $305,751.92, reflecting $303,717.00 in attorneys' fees and $2,034.92 in costs; and
4. It is further adjudged that Drew H. Sherman and Adli Law Group P.C. are jointly and severally liable to Juan Croucier for payment of $85,357.50 of the liability of WBS under this judgment.
So, Freight train and his company have to pay 85 Grand? I know nothing about legal system, but is that normal for a lawyer and/or company to be liable for payment if they lose a case... Was he slandering them?
VP Guitars wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:11 pm
Blobs continues to get hosed in court.
The courtroom is his dance floor!
Luminiferous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:56 pmThere has been an update on the Blobster/Sherman saga... Judge added another $72,824.42 onto their tab for Juan and his attorney, making it $220,394.42 for Blobs and still $85,357.50 for Sherminator and his former law office.. TOTAL: $305,751.92
DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Court.
On November 9, 2016 this Court issued its Order Re: Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 181) in which it, inter alia, adjudicated liability in favor of Defendant Juan Croucier on the claims brought against him by Plaintiff WBS, Inc.
On June 7, 2017, the Court entered judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff WBS, Inc. (Docket No. 230).
On August 21, 2017, a Bill of Costs was entered, taxing costs in the amount of $1,465.72 in favor of Juan Croucier and against WBS, Inc. (Docket No. 244).
WBS, Inc. appealed and Juan Croucier cross-appealed. On March 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's rulings save the denial of Croucier's motion for attorneys' fees, and remanded the case for a further determination (Docket No. 229).
On April 4, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Mandate stating, "The judgment of this Court, entered March 07, 2019, takes effect this date[]" and taxing costs against WBS, Inc. and in favor of Juan Croucier in the amount of $572.20 (Docket No. 246).
On May 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $70,789.50 in favor of appellees/cross appellants Juan Carlos Croucier and Croucier Productions, Inc. and against appellant/cross-appellee WBS, Inc. and amending the Court's mandate (Docket No. 248).
On March 11, 2020 this Court issued an Order Re: Motion for Attorney Fees (Docket No. 255) in which it granted Croucier an award of fees against WBS, Inc. in the amount of $232,927.50 and found Plaintiff's counsel Drew Sherman and Adli Law Group P.C. jointly liable for $85,357 of that amount.
Pursuant to the above, Judgment in this case is hereby amended as follows:
1. WBS, Inc. (WBS), does not own the RATT trademarks, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 1383344, 1383345, 1368246, and 1368245, as those trademarks were never properly assigned to it from the RATT Partnership;
2. WBS, Inc's Complaint is dismissed with Prejudice as to all Defendants, and WBS, Inc. shall take nothing;
3. Judgment is entered in favor of Juan Croucier and against WBS, Inc. in the amount of $305,751.92, reflecting $303,717.00 in attorneys' fees and $2,034.92 in costs; and
4. It is further adjudged that Drew H. Sherman and Adli Law Group P.C. are jointly and severally liable to Juan Croucier for payment of $85,357.50 of the liability of WBS under this judgment.
So, Freight train and his company have to pay 85 Grand? I know nothing about legal system, but is that normal for a lawyer and/or company to be liable for payment if they lose a case... Was he slandering them?
From the original case the judge admonished Sherm for attacking Juan's lawyer's religious practices among ignoring the court's repeated warnings of his misconduct..
Plaintiff's baseless ex parte requests, requests for sanctions, and allegations of fraud and deceit against Croucier's counsel are too numerous to list here in full.
The record is replete, however, with examples of counsel's unprofessional conduct and communications, ranging from the merely profane and disrespectful to the offensive impugnment of opposing counsel's religious practices and repeated, baseless threats of sanctions.
Then after the 9th Circuit remanded the case and refused to change the decision, you had Blobs and Sherm file even more frivolous motions, then go on the radio and accuse the judge of deciding against him because he was a Trump supporter..
Here is the court's full explanation why Sherm got sanctioned and hit with partial liability in the case.. (also probably why Adli fired him too.)
Sounds more like Blobs hired a lawyer as dumb as he is..
Sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel
Defendant's fee motion also seeks to hold Plaintiff's counsel responsible for some fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. As stated above, Section 1927 allows for fees to be levied against any attorney or other person who "multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously." 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Although, as explained above, the Ninth Circuit denied Defendant's request for appellate fees under Section 1927, the Ninth Circuit's substantive decision remanding this fee matter to this Court does not appear to foreclose a fee award against Plaintiff's counsel. Indeed, the court's references to Plaintiff's "vexatious approach to this litigation" and "repeated failures to follow procedural rules" suggest that such an award would be justified. In light of that suggestion, and upon further review of the record, this Court finds that Plaintiff's counsel Drew Sherman and Adli Law did unreasonably and vexatiously multiply the proceedings in this case. The court further finds that Defendant's submissions adequately identify the particular billing items attributable to counsel's improper conduct.
Although that list is too long to re-state here, and this Court declines to consider Plaintiff's counsel's conduct in other, unrelated matters, counsel's response to the instant fee motion is representative of Plaintiff's approach to this litigation. After Defendant filed this motion, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the fee motion for failure to meet and confer, even though Plaintiff (1) conceded that the parties had met and conferred regarding the fee motion and (2) himself failed to meet and confer prior to filing the motion to strike. (Dkt. 188.) Plaintiff's counsel also requested sanctions against Defendant's counsel, as he has frequently done. (Id.) Plaintiff then filed an ex parte application to shorten time for the hearing on the motion to strike, seeking to preempt the fee motion. (Dkt. 189.) This Court summarily denied both the motion to strike and ex parte application. (Dkt. 191, 229.) Plaintiff also filed an improper motion for reconsideration, which was stricken, before then correctly filing the same motion, which, as discussed in this Court's order denying reconsideration, raised meritless arguments and baselessly accused Defendant's counsel of fraud on the court.5 (Dkt. 192, 198.) Only then did Plaintiff finally file an opposition to Defendant's fee motion. As discussed above, that opposition included little relevant substantive argument and again sought sanctions against Defendant's counsel and accused him of fraud. (Dkt. 202.)
Although the pattern and substance of Plaintiff's numerous filings might itself support a sanctions award under Section 1927, evidence in the record confirms that counsel often acted in bad faith to prolong the litigation, with no legitimate purpose. Indeed, it appears from the record that counsel pursued certain strategies for no reason other than to inconvenience opposing counsel, and in some instances may have acted in opposition to his client's wishes.6 Accordingly, Drew Sherman and Adli Law shall be liable for $85,357.50 of the $232,927.50 awarded to Defendant Croucier.
28 U.S. Code § 1927. Counsel’s liability for excessive costs: Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.
VP Guitars wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:19 pm
I wonder how Blobster has navigated the Chinese Virus?
And now the riotin'?
Wonder if he donned a fake police suit and is out there tacklin' people
I bet he put a solid white square on his insta feed today.
Blotzer is such a POS. Was it the former manager who said that Blotzer didn't want to stay at a certain hotel because "there are too many black people here."
What a POS.
Is it radio silence at Bloopy Blapland these days? He was so public during the time of Blatt! Did the lawsuit drain him of all his power? I'd love for him to run his mouth about all current events!
Don't Damn Me wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:21 pm
Dummy, are you aware that hydroxy-chloroqin and Ivermectin have since been proven effective?
HueyRamone wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:52 pm
Is it radio silence at Bloopy Blapland these days? He was so public during the time of Blatt! Did the lawsuit drain him of all his power? I'd love for him to run his mouth about all current events!
He's writing his memoirs.
I reckon all songs are folk songs. I ain't never heard no horses singing any.
HueyRamone wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:52 pm
Is it radio silence at Bloopy Blapland these days? He was so public during the time of Blatt! Did the lawsuit drain him of all his power? I'd love for him to run his mouth about all current events!
His rump is sore after all of the legal pummeling. Years of recovery and therapy will be required.
BIozter's Treehouse posted the link to a profile page
(https://lawtally.com/lawyers/drew-sherman/) for Sherman in the Can Blobster afford his mortgage?? thread. The comments are at the bottom of the page.
LitaStrauss wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 5:57 am
Nobody is out to get you. Get off line and stop reading bullshit.
I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. These two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin - Modern Philosopher
usually...for some reason it’s the Bassist who acts like the idiot “leader”, but Bobby’s the biggest pos, egotistical, most expendable of that band, such a douche.
