Long legal battle between Moniker founder and Oversee.net is over.
Moniker.com founder Monte Cahn has dismissed his lawsuit against Oversee.net regarding money he said he was owed under a bonus plan.
Cahn joined Oversee.net after Seevast sold Moniker to Oversee.net. Cahn left Oversee at the end of 2010. In May 2011 he filed a lawsuit against the company arguing he was due part of a $13 million bonus plan.
Having read many of the documents and examinations filed with the court, I can say this was a particularly unsettling legal battle for both parties. There was certainly ill-will between Cahn and some of Oversee.net’s former staff.
Yet a lot has changed since the lawsuit was filed. Oversee.net CEO Jeff Kupietzky left the company in August 2011, and Oversee.net sold Moniker earlier this year.
387 documents were filed since the case was initiated. There was already an initial trial on one issue, which the judge ruled in favor of Oversee.net.
Here’s the statement of dismissal:
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties and Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Monte Cahn and Defendants Oversee.net, Jeffrey Kupietzky, and Lawrence Ng, through their respective undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate to the voluntary dismissal of this Action in its entirety against all defendants with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
Details of the settlement were not disclosed. I’ve reached out to both sides for comment.
Glad it is over for them.
This saga started in 2007. Monte built a great company called Moniker.com with the best employees in the biz and built it from scratch. It was one of the most trusted companies in our space. Then the new entity dragged their sterling name through the mud along with folks that never deserved treatment like that.
Not all deals are good deals and who you make the deal with is key. I am sure if Monte had a “Mulligan” he would have done it differently looking back.
Well said Rick.
All this for that?
What a loss of times!
Including for bloggers and readers who lost time writting and reading such stuff when this not affect in any way their life.
Agree with above statement, such a waste, really all about dollars… none of us get, just increased pricing for all of us.
@ Andrew Alleman, are you an attorney? Which way does the “prejudice” tilt on, “dismissed with prejudice?” Is it prejudice in favor of Monte or the sued parties?
@ Louise – that just means the case can’t be filed again.
Okay, I had to look it up:
in a civil case, dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future. The present action is dismissed but the possibility remains open that the plaintiff may file another suit on the same claim. The inverse phrase is dismissal with prejudice, in which the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it; dismissal without prejudice is not.
Since there is a settlement, “dismissed with prejudice” is a reasonable request, so that the plaintiff, Monte, can’t file the same complaint.
But I had a “dismissed with prejudice” on the 2nd of the same complaints filed against me personally in a civil case. The first time it was simply dismissed; the 2nd, with prejudice. To me, it is a protection, because that complainant was a pit bull who wouldn’t stop; plus, he threatened alot more litigation for 100’s of thousands, and to my family.
I wanted the dismissal with prejudice.