Butts Kicked???

The hearing for the motion for a preliminary injunction took place yesterday afternoon at the Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, Trenton, New Jersey in behalf of a class action suit regarding NorVergence equipment leases. The Honorable Stanley R. Chesler was presiding.

The hearing was a request for an injunction against leasing companies

continuing to collect leasing payments on NorVergence equipment.

This one reaction, which was posted on a Yahoo list serve,

and becomes public knowledge as it was made public also

to those outside the service of the list serve:

“I just returned from the NJ federal court hearing. We got out butts

kicked pretty good.  While our attorneys did a fine job, they seemed

outmanned by the collective presence of the 20+ high powered

attorneys representing the leasing companies.

 I'm no attorney so I won't try to go into much detail, but the judge basically ruled that he had no authority to issue an injunction in connection with any legal actions that had already commenced, and for those that hadn't, he wasn't convinced that each and every one of us would suffer "irreparable harm" unless the injunction were issued.

“ He pointed out that the foundation of our legal system is the right for

anybody to sue anybody about anything at anytime.  "It happens

everyday". He preferred for each of us to have our individual day in

court, with the expectation that justice would eventually prevail if

were in fact harmed in some way.  Small business owners vs. gigantic

leasing companies - I guess he never learned the ‘Deep Pocket'‘

theory in law school.

“ I know I can't afford to hire an attorney capable of fighting the likes of the army they had assembled against us, especially in a state far from where I live. 

“The above is just my interpretation of what transpired. As there

were at best 4 "victims" there and as far as I could tell, no press,

I doubt if there will be much additional information until official

reports are released.  The NJ AG did have a representative there,

and we can hope for his continued support.

“I think a better showing by us may have had some impact.”

Leasing News has tried to reach one of the main attorneys representing the plaintiff group but has not received a comment or statement a press time.

The leasing companies basic position is they did not choose

the equipment, nor made any representations or warranty

regarding the equipment and were not responsible for any

warranty, maintenance, or service, and primarily were

providing the funds to finance the transaction outlined

in the contract.