NO Pending lawsuit between Mike Portnoy and Dream Theater

[Mbarak]

Blob is correct. It was indeed "attorney for former Dream Theater drummer Mike Portnoy" and then it changed. I had the old page still open.

Proof:

[bosk1]

Dear bosk1, there is one thing I am wondering of. Not about this case, but for knowledge. For the U.S. system, is the claimant is actually addressed as the "plaintiff" and the summoned respondent is actually addressed as the "defendant" at so early stage as before the complaint being filed ?

In my country, the parties would be addressed as "plaintiff" and "defendant" when the complaint is already filed.

Yes and no.  I mean, strictly speaking, before there is officially a lawsuit, they technically aren't "plaintiffs" or "defendants."  But for all practical purposes, if there is the threat of litigation pending, there isn't really any other common practical way of referring to them, so it is understandable that that terminology would be used even if not technically correct. 

But in this situation, since a summons usually accompanies a complaint, the parties would be designated as "plaintiffs" and "defendants." 

For the general information of the forum:  The "complaint" is the actual operative lawsuit document that lays out the parties, the claims, and other important information.  The "summons" is a document that goes with the complaint and informs the defendants that a lawsuit has been filed, summarizes the claims, and notifies the defendants that they need to file an appearance with the court or else they will essentially be deemed to have consented to have judgment entered against them.  As I mentioned yesterday, the N.Y.S.C.'s electronic docket system has been acting screwy, so I couldn't get in and figure out what documents were on file.  If the recent release is correct, there was never a complaint.  Mike's attorney filed a summons without the complaint, and appears to have voluntarily dropped the suit before it got going.

[zipporaid]

did anyone see / have link to Wey's original post?

[kon_jakae]

Dear bosk1, thank you very much for the clarification

[lithium112]

Some people on this forum seriously need to take a chill pill. The summons was never served - for all we know MP was recommended to file a summons by his lawyers and that's the only reason it exists. At this point people are taking every single action or piece of news and putting a bad spin on it.

Lawsuit summons appears? MP is suing DT and they can't use their name anymore!
Wey leaves? OMG even Wey - things are worse than ever!
Wey returns and admits he was wrong? This is really fishy and they're just trying to cover up the real facts!
News post that there's no lawsuit? Must be trying to clean up all the dirty details under the table!

and worst of all:
In the past week there was nothing but a very positive interview with MP and a series of positive and un-whiny messages by MP himself in response to this issue. He's not writing anything passive-aggressive or negative which is what everyone has been bitching about for the past year. Finally he's keeping his head down and being mature and not instigating anything and all it's doing is causing people to doubt him further.

Lots of members of this board love to jump on the "Hate Mike Portnoy" bandwagon and are way too fast to judge him on everything. I know we're all passionate about DT and their future but can we please take a step back once in a while and let facts speak louder than pitch-fork-wielding conjecture?

Things like:

I really don't care honestly at this point. He filed a summon, and that's the same thing.

Are just pointless angst after you read the facts:

It says the summons is moot because (1) it is only a summons and not a complaint (which is the operative document you have to file to initiate a lawsuit), and (2) it was never served on the defendants, which is required to move forward with a lawsuit.  It's real.  It just doesn't amount to anything.

And honestly - saying the name of the lawyer sounds "made up" is just childish.

[jingle.boy]

Does it not stand to reason that if MP isn't 'legally allowed to speak about it', and the current band members (and RoadRunner) have voluntarily not spoken in any depth about it in the last 5 months, that an agreement was reached between the two parties?  And that the agreement has non-disclosure language.

I hate to use the word obviously, because that word itself is redundant.  This just seems to be a likely scenario.

Personally, I'm forming my opinion of Mike based on his current actions, not something that is a "moot" point, even from DT's perspective.

Good post Lithium. 

[bosk1]

Does it not stand to reason that if MP isn't 'legally allowed to speak about it', and the current band members (and RoadRunner) have voluntarily not spoken in any depth about it in the last 5 months, that an agreement was reached between the two parties?  And that the agreement has non-disclosure language.

I hate to use the word obviously, because that word itself is redundant.  This just seems to be a likely scenario.

Personally, I'm forming my opinion of Mike based on his current actions, not something that is a "moot" point, even from DT's perspective.

Good post Lithium. 

It is a logical assumption, but isn't the only option.  For example, as I've been saying, it could also be something along the lines of:  It is a long, drawn out negotiation/dispute, and the lawyers have instructed everyone to keep quiet about it for now so the unnecessary noise (such as Internet forums going ballistic when they receive a tiny snippet of information) doesn't interfere with the process.





And, no, I'm not saying that Internet forums would actually go ballistic when they receive a tiny snippet of information.  That was just a hypothetical.  I'm sure it would never actually happen. 

[rumborak]

The summons was never served - for all we know MP was recommended to file a summons by his lawyers and that's the only reason it exists.

That is a rather ... naive explanation of the facts. Sorry dude, but people don't just file summons because "their lawyers advised them to", and then drop them again willy-nilly. The reason there is nothing public further on file is because it continued in private.
Also, don't forget the reasons for the summons. That is a ridiculous lawsuit.

rumborak

[blackngold29]

So when MP says he 'cannot legally talk about it' he possibly means that 'he will never be allowed to legally talk about it'? Because it was part of the (suing, case, lawsuit, disagreement, whatever) that nobody can talk about it?

If that's the case then why wouldn't he say "The case is over, but I can't talk about it as per the settlement. Now moving on." Then respectfully decline to comment on anything DT for a year.

Bitching would end immediately.

[AngelBack]

Hiring a lawyer (in addition to purchasing their legal knowledge) often times is so they can be the "bad guy" and the client can try and remain some dignity and maintain some semblance of behavior that they feel comfortable with.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  Lawyers have no dog in the fight other than getting their client everything they can.  Some lawyers have a "win by any means necessary" approach and some take this to more of an extreme than others. If you have had to deal with legal issues before, this would not be a big shock.  And if you ever need a lawyer to represent you, I suggest you NOT look for a nice, polite, touchy-feely type, but rather something along of lines of a bulldog.

[MarlaHooch]

Some people on this forum seriously need to take a chill pill. The summons was never served - for all we know MP was recommended to file a summons by his lawyers and that's the only reason it exists. At this point people are taking every single action or piece of news and putting a bad spin on it.

Lots of members of this board love to jump on the "Hate Mike Portnoy" bandwagon and are way too fast to judge him on everything. I know we're all passionate about DT and their future but can we please take a step back once in a while and let facts speak louder than pitch-fork-wielding conjecture?

This.  100% this.

[ariich]

The summons was never served - for all we know MP was recommended to file a summons by his lawyers and that's the only reason it exists.

That is a rather ... naive explanation of the facts. Sorry dude, but people don't just file summons because "their lawyers advised them to"

And you're accusing other people of being naive? People absolutely do do that.

Anyway, this is a big relief, and it's good to have it clarified by DT's lawyer.

[Xanthul]

To the guys claiming it's a fake name... seriously, Google is not that hard

https://www.musicesq.com/

[Millais]

to be quite frank, I'm getting pretty confused over this whole situation.

[ariich]

to be quite frank, I'm getting pretty confused over this whole situation.

bosk gave a pretty good explanation of the distinction between a summons, a complaint and a lawsuit in this thread, just give his posts a read and it should make more sense.

[yorost]

I hate to use the word obviously, because that word itself is redundant.

You're being unfair.  Obviously is not inherently redundant.

[Adami]

I hate to use the word obviously, because that word itself is redundant.

You're being unfair.  Obviously is not inherently redundant.

Obviously.

[darkshade]

I'm taking MP's debacle with a grain of salt, as we don't know all the facts.

However, the actions of some people on here and at MP.com has really left me jaded, and in the last 24 hours, I feel like some members turned into ignorant, immature 15 year old's complaining and whining. I think I will not go on these forums for a little while.

[Millais]

to be quite frank, I'm getting pretty confused over this whole situation.

bosk gave a pretty good explanation of the distinction between a summons, a complaint and a lawsuit in this thread, just give his posts a read and it should make more sense.

no that was great.  but this whole situation just seems to have layers and layers upon it, many of which are not available, or that we are "legally" allowed to see at this moment.

[ehra]

to be quite frank, I'm getting pretty confused over this whole situation.

Which is why I've just ignored any of the DT/MP drama for awhile now. I don't know MP, whether he does or doesn't act like a tard or cool guy in interviews has no affect on me, and I have no desire to get worked up about this for those reasons. MP could be the coolest or worst person ever, it's really none of my business and I'm not sure why people with no personal relation to him try so hard to make it theirs.

[ariich]

I'm taking MP's debacle with a grain of salt, as we don't know all the facts.

However, the actions of some people on here and at MP.com has really left me jaded, and in the last 24 hours, I feel like some members turned into ignorant, immature 15 year old's complaining and whining. I think I will not go on these forums for a little while.

Well, I often find it quite disappointing here how people are always so quick to jump down MP's throat with everything he does. But on this occasion (1) pretty much everyone was very reasonable and respectful with their posting about it, and (2) with the information we had available, it was appropriate to make some assumptions. Now it turns out that there is no lawsuit after all, which is great, but it was perfectly reasonable of people to respond the way they did. (I'm talking about DTF only, I haven't really followed the reactions at other places but it seems to have been more extreme, so I do feel like we're doing something right here).

[rumborak]

The summons was never served - for all we know MP was recommended to file a summons by his lawyers and that's the only reason it exists.

That is a rather ... naive explanation of the facts. Sorry dude, but people don't just file summons because "their lawyers advised them to"

And you're accusing other people of being naive? People absolutely do do that.

You can not possibly tell me that Mike Portnoy got approached by his lawyers who said "listen, you should probably sue Dream Theater, for good measure", and MP, taking into account what a public backlash against him such a suit could cause (which it also did), just shrugged his shoulders and said "err, sure, why not".
In April Mike Portnoy intended to sue Dream Theater, that is a fact. And for outrageous reasons to boot. Why it was never publicly followed through ca be a topic for discussion. But, in my book Mike Portnoy is past the point of getting the benefit of doubt.

rumborak

[ariich]

Nothing about that is a "fact".

But I never said that MP definitely just listened to the advice of his lawyers. It's entirely possible that this was all off his own back. I was just responding to your claim that nobody would do that, when lots of people absolutely would.

But more than anything else (whether it was his idea or his lawyer's) it sounds like it was a bargaining chip.

[BlobVanDam]

The lawsuit seems too specific to me to be simply at the suggestion of his lawyers. However, the fact it wasn't filed (or whatever it was), leads me to believe there's enough more to the story not to pass final judgement. Not giving him the benefit of the doubt at all, because none of it makes sense to begin with, but it doesn't affect my judgement of MP much either.

[reneranucci]

Who cares

[Cruithne]

Some people on this forum seriously need to take a chill pill. The summons was never served - for all we know MP was recommended to file a summons by his lawyers and that's the only reason it exists. At this point people are taking every single action or piece of news and putting a bad spin on it.

So, was the original summons(?) a broadside hit to encourage them to start taking the settlement negotiations seriously, or just the opening gambit for negotiations and there's been no need to push on with a lawsuit?

[bosk1]

The summons was never served - for all we know MP was recommended to file a summons by his lawyers and that's the only reason it exists.

That is a rather ... naive explanation of the facts. Sorry dude, but people don't just file summons because "their lawyers advised them to", and then drop them again willy-nilly.

Incorrect.  It literally happens every single day.

[blackngold29]

Some people on this forum seriously need to take a chill pill. The summons was never served - for all we know MP was recommended to file a summons by his lawyers and that's the only reason it exists. At this point people are taking every single action or piece of news and putting a bad spin on it.

So, was the original summons(?) a broadside hit to encourage them to start taking the settlement negotiations seriously, or just the opening gambit for negotiations and there's been no need to push on with a lawsuit?

Yeah, basically if it's nothing then why does it exist?

[darkshade]

I'm taking MP's debacle with a grain of salt, as we don't know all the facts.

However, the actions of some people on here and at MP.com has really left me jaded, and in the last 24 hours, I feel like some members turned into ignorant, immature 15 year old's complaining and whining. I think I will not go on these forums for a little while.

Well, I often find it quite disappointing here how people are always so quick to jump down MP's throat with everything he does. But on this occasion (1) pretty much everyone was very reasonable and respectful with their posting about it, and (2) with the information we had available, it was appropriate to make some assumptions. Now it turns out that there is no lawsuit after all, which is great, but it was perfectly reasonable of people to respond the way they did. (I'm talking about DTF only, I haven't really followed the reactions at other places but it seems to have been more extreme, so I do feel like we're doing something right here).

true. I didn't mean everyone, many people were polite and respectful. A lot of people need to realize this all went down in April, and not right now, and right now is when MP has been at his best since the split. I think I just don't care about all the drama anymore.

[kon_jakae]

I am so glad that they would not have to face one another in the Court, otherwise the situation and relationship between them would become completely unrepairable. I always believe in ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).

[Saiko]

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier for BOTH sides to have made a statement from the beginning that it is a legal matter and they can't discuss it? Seems there would have been a lot less drama.
But then again, yesterday's entertaining forum meltdown wouldn't have occured. 

[Knguro]

Is there any way to merge this two threads? Just a suggesion.

[Major Thirteenth]

The summons was never served - for all we know MP was recommended to file a summons by his lawyers and that's the only reason it exists.

That is a rather ... naive explanation of the facts. Sorry dude, but people don't just file summons because "their lawyers advised them to", and then drop them again willy-nilly. The reason there is nothing public further on file is because it continued in private.
Also, don't forget the reasons for the summons. That is a ridiculous lawsuit.

rumborak

Correct. It is continuing in private and has not elevated to the level of actual litigation. Hopefully it never will. But since I believe that Mike is demanding an amount that exponentially exceeds the value of his contributions, it is possible, in the absence of positional collapse, that litigation may be ultimately be required to settle the dispute. A lot of the gulf between the positions is highly subjective, and thus may become a question of fact for litigation to resolve. What would be beneficial is representation by lawyers who are better at horse trading than saber rattling. Unfortunately, the latter are more common than the former.

[Kotowboy]

Phew. Huge relief.

Although I was looking forward to suggesting the name Dream Arena to the guys via twitter

[bosk1]

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier for BOTH sides to have made a statement from the beginning that it is a legal matter and they can't discuss it?

They did.