Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
default_judgment [2019/05/30 18:15] – old revision restored (2019/05/30 17:54) Carlos Pedraza | default_judgment [2019/06/06 19:18] (current) – updated axanar blog link to webarchive version; Peters has removed his victory claim from the blog as it appears today. Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== | + | {{:: |
+ | <fs smaller> | ||
- | <font inherit/inherit;;# | + | <fs x-small> |
- | Has Alec Peters really won his case against former Axanar director Robert Meyer Burnett? Peters makes that claim in a blog yesterday, but Georgia state law says different. Here’s our analysis. | + | |
- | <WRAP left round box> | + | ====== Peters Claims Spurious Victory in Burnett Lawsuit ====== |
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | <fs larger> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP left box> | ||
{{:: | {{:: | ||
- | <fs smaller> | + | <fs smaller> |
</ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{TOC}}{{page> | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Alec Peters claims** he's [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{page> | ||
+ | <WRAP center 90%> <fs smaller> | ||
===== Default Judgment ===== | ===== Default Judgment ===== | ||
- | **Alec Peters claims** he's won a default judgment in his lawsuit against former Axanar director Robert Meyer Burnett, in which his primary goal is getting the digital assets he needs to produce the Axanar short films. | + | Even if Peters has obtained a default judgment, the case is far from resolved; it doesn’t mean he’s won the case. |
- | <WRAP 95% center> | + | |
- | * **Not so fast**. | + | |
- | * **Failure to respond**. Peters says Robert Meyer Burnett failed to respond to his legal complaint, filed in Georgia state court, before the deadline, so he thinks he's won. | + | |
- | * **No record**. The Georgia court' | + | |
- | * **Miscount? | + | |
- | * **Not so**. However, under Georgia law, Burnett’s lack of response does not immediately equal a default judgment. Peters' | + | |
- | * **Not so cut-and-dried**. Even if he’s obtained a default judgment, the situation isn't as cut-and-dried as Peters indicates in his blog. Under Georgia law, Burnett is entitled 15 days after the default judgment was entered to re-open the case; the court is then required to hear Burnett’s case. | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== Not dead yet ===== | + | ==== Failure to respond ==== |
+ | |||
+ | Peters says Robert Meyer Burnett failed to respond to his legal complaint, filed in Georgia state court, before the deadline, so he thinks he's won. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{page> | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, the Georgia court' | ||
+ | |||
+ | But under Georgia law, Burnett’s lack of response does not immediately equal a default judgment. Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Under Georgia law, Burnett is entitled 15 days after the default judgment was entered to re-open the case; the court is then required to hear Burnett’s case. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Not Dead Yet ===== | ||
Burnett has plenty of grounds to reverse a default judgment and reopen the case, even if he does miss the 15-day window to get it heard automatically. Of the three possible grounds under Georgia law, Burnett may be able to claim two: | Burnett has plenty of grounds to reverse a default judgment and reopen the case, even if he does miss the 15-day window to get it heard automatically. Of the three possible grounds under Georgia law, Burnett may be able to claim two: | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
<WRAP 95% center> | <WRAP 95% center> | ||
- **Lack of personal jurisdiction** over the defendant. This means the defendant subject to the judgment is not a resident of Georgia and has no significant ties to Georgia. This has been an issue with Peters’ suit from the start, and none of his court filings have demonstrated why a Georgia court would have jurisdiction over a California resident over actions that didn’t occur in Georgia. | - **Lack of personal jurisdiction** over the defendant. This means the defendant subject to the judgment is not a resident of Georgia and has no significant ties to Georgia. This has been an issue with Peters’ suit from the start, and none of his court filings have demonstrated why a Georgia court would have jurisdiction over a California resident over actions that didn’t occur in Georgia. | ||
Line 29: | Line 50: | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | ===== Three Years to Vacate ===== | + | ===== Years to Vacate |
Under Georgia law, once a defendant becomes aware of a default judgment, he must file a motion to vacate it within a reasonable time. “Reasonable time” apparently means three years. A court can vacate a judgment within three years from the original entry of judgment. | Under Georgia law, once a defendant becomes aware of a default judgment, he must file a motion to vacate it within a reasonable time. “Reasonable time” apparently means three years. A court can vacate a judgment within three years from the original entry of judgment. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round info 320px> | ||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | <wrap em>The Mudds</ | ||
+ | <fs smaller> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Fact Check Rating ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP tip 90%> | ||
+ | <wrap em> | ||
+ | <wrap lo> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | **Keywords** {{tag> |