The latest in the Crytek v CIG lawsuit. I made a video (I do NOT like doing videos!).
Also, for those of you wondering what those guys are going on about, they went to Google, found the first link about amendments, then post it as proof that the MtD ruling on the SAC, somehow supersedes the MtD ruling on the FAC, thus those claims are gone
The link:
ammlaw.com/blog/to-amend-…
Their brain froze at this part I guess:
"the original pleading is of no effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the original pleading"
ammlaw.com/blog/to-amend-…
Their brain froze at this part I guess:
"the original pleading is of no effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the original pleading"
he above is why the MtD ruling on the SAC has ZERO impact on the MtD ruling of the FAC.
This is also the bs that those YT "attorneys" are peddling because clearly they didn't even read the SAC long enough to note that it doesn't make any reference to the prior issues in the FAC.
This is also the bs that those YT "attorneys" are peddling because clearly they didn't even read the SAC long enough to note that it doesn't make any reference to the prior issues in the FAC.
#1 (12/12/2017) - original complaint
#2 (01/02/2018) - FAC = First Amended Complaint. This one contained EVERYTHING from the original complaint except they cleaned up the Ortwin issue related to his waiver. So THIS one did supersede the original complaint
#2 (01/02/2018) - FAC = First Amended Complaint. This one contained EVERYTHING from the original complaint except they cleaned up the Ortwin issue related to his waiver. So THIS one did supersede the original complaint
#3 (08/16/2018) - SAC = Second Amended Complaint. This one was ONLY about 2.4 which the judge gave them leave to amend in her ruling on the FAC.
As a result of the SAC, that's why the judge had this at the TOP of that MtD ruling: "On September 6, 2018, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss ("MTD"), now before the Court, seeking dismissal of Crytek's claim for breach of contract based on Section 2.4 of the GLA"
