SnapNames Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
Saturday, February 27th, 2010
Lawsuit over employee bidding scandal voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff.
A lawsuit against Snapnames and parent company Oversee.net that was requesting class action status has been voluntarily dismissed.
Steward Resmer, a SnapNames customer who lost $20 in an auction thanks to the “halvarez scandal”, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Central District of California in November. Resmer was seeking class action status for the case on behalf of U.S. customers who had lost money due to inflated bidding. He was asking for Snapames to “Disgorge Defendants of all revenue earned from SnapNames.com Internet domain name auctions during the Class period”.
The lawsuit hit a major roadblock when the judge questioned the dollar amount in question in the suit. In order to be certified as a class action, at least $5 million in damages must have occurred. As it turned out, U.S. customers lost less than $1 million in direct over bids thanks to the employee bidding.
Resmer dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled at a later date. A copy of the dismissal is here.
Related posts:
- Judge Says SnapNames Lawsuit Might be Too Small for Class Action
- Lawyer: SnapNames Class Action Headed to State Court
- Second Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Oversee.net and SnapNames
Tags: halvarez, Oversee.net, SnapNames
The suit put into perspective the smallness of the bad behavior of one employee run amok compared to what the press blew it up as at first! Oversee is in a good position to rebuild its reputation now.
Yes Oversee is in good position, but this case show how money wins, the case was a bit of not a big deal but it did point out something…it was thrown out cause it didnt reach 5 million in damages.. please
green light to steal under 5 million.
Welcome to America
I believe Pool.com was doing exactly the same as snapnames.
Anyone putting in a high initial reserve amount simply had an alias bidder bid to that amount.
POOL should come out publicly and deny this.
I believe Oversee/Snapnames corporate moral character is mostly positive. Mainly because they don’t want to get caught again.
I believe some other companies don’t have any corporate moral character.
Corporate mission statement -
“Catch me if you can.”
Id say someone should take out some street justice but after seeing his picture I ended up feeling bad for him and figured rearranging his face would only improve his looks.
I suspect the lawyers realized they weren’t looking at the payday they were expecting
Andrew stop right there about the lawyers please…what we have here is a pattern of deception that ran for thousands of auctions for a large amount of money.
This conduct was carried out by an individual at a corporation who was in a position to do it, the corporation benefited, the oversee purchase gives the assumption of the liabilities of their acquisition, the good bad and the ugly.
These are complicated legal issues, and lay persons are ill equipt to navigate them, like it or not Andrew lawyers make a living going after people and corporations like these.
@ Stewart – then why did you drop the suit?
Andrew, thank you for asking, perhpas you might consider doing an aertcile where you ask that of the attornies now?
After all you have had the opportunity to interview the oversee executive in tha pst and post it here?
Why then not put a call in to the offices of the attorney and make your radio program from this side of the arguemnt too?
hmmmm?
(brichman@edelson.com)
Stewart – I’d love to talk to your lawyer.
[...] district court against Snapnames and Oversee.net over the ‘Halvarez’ scandal and later dismissed the case say it’s not over [...]
What about the Cueto Florida lawsuit? It’s still going on.