Slog Comments

 

Comments (20) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Cato the Younger Younger 1
Blame the secretary! Sounds like Pepsi's been watching Mad Men a little too much.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on October 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM
2
Pepsi's lawyers need to be disbarred if they think they can't be sued in the state of their incorporation in addition to their principal place of business.

Seriously, that's Civil Procedure 101
Posted by vooodooo84 on October 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM
3
Companies that incorporate in tax and tort friendly states like NC and Delaware have to deal with getting served process in those states. It's just about the only negative consequence to an otherwise completely corporate friendly practice.

Had they been served in Purchase, NY and not responded they would be arguing that they should have been served in NC.

At any rate, I know one secretary who won't be getting a Christmas bonus.
Posted by maverjoe on October 29, 2009 at 9:36 AM
4
Companies that incorporate in tax and tort friendly states like NC and Delaware have to deal with getting served process in those states. It's just about the only negative consequence to an otherwise completely corporate friendly practice.

Had they been served in Purchase, NY and not responded they would be arguing that they should have been served in NC.

At any rate, I know one secretary who won't be getting a Christmas bonus.
Posted by maverjoe on October 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM
5
@2: It literally is Civil Procedure 101. I'm a 1L at Seattle U and we're going over this very fact at the moment. I wonder what's going to happen as a result. Pepsi can't appeal this on any fact other than their failure to respond, correct? Doesn't that mean they have basically no recourse?
Posted by Faber on October 29, 2009 at 9:43 AM
6
@2: It literally is Civil Procedure 101. I'm a 1L at Seattle U and we're going over this very fact at the moment. I wonder what's going to happen as a result. Pepsi can't appeal this on any fact other than their failure to respond, correct? Doesn't that mean they have basically no recourse?
Posted by Faber on October 29, 2009 at 9:43 AM
7
@2: It literally is Civil Procedure 101. I'm a 1L at Seattle U and we're going over this very fact at the moment. I wonder what's going to happen as a result. Pepsi can't appeal this on any fact other than their failure to respond, correct? Doesn't that mean they have basically no recourse?
Posted by Faber on October 29, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Bub 8
Did Faber read the fine print on the posting guidelines?
Posted by Bub on October 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Cato the Younger Younger 9
@8 no
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on October 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Cato the Younger Younger 10
@8 no
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on October 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 11
Faber, yes, of course they can appeal, but they'll be forced to appeal the decision to set aside the default judgment, and only on that issue, and judges are typically given wide discretion on that issue.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on October 29, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 12
Hah! Didn't double-post (though the server's so fucked-up I was certainly tempted).
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on October 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Fnarf 13
@1, Lois, a secretary on "Mad Men", CUT OFF THE NEW TOP EXECUTIVE'S FOOT with a riding mower in the office and didn't get fired.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on October 29, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Mahtli69 14
Pretty boneheaded on Pepsi's part but, then again, the conflict was over bottled water. Evian has been around for over 100 years, so how is this a new idea?
Posted by Mahtli69 on October 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM
15
@5,6,7 Ha, yeah well I am a 3L at SU. Who do you have for Civ Pro? Shapiro?
Posted by vooodooo84 on October 29, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Mahtli69 16
@13 - Great scene. I think all of the American execs breathed a sigh of relief when Wonder Boy got taken out. Lois did them a favor.
Posted by Mahtli69 on October 29, 2009 at 10:29 AM
The Amazing Jim 17
I just wonder if that secretary will be getting a noce bonus from the plantiffs.
Posted by The Amazing Jim http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=100000076496291&ref=profile on October 29, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Urgutha Forka 18
You snooze, you lose
Posted by Urgutha Forka on October 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Westlake, son! 19
Now tell me how they're going to get Pepsi to pay, lawyers. Corporations = corporate personhood, and person's don't have debtor's prison. Have Pepsi's employer granish wages? Ha! Pepsi works for itself. Revoke Pepsi's passport? Ha, Pepsi isn't a person. Too big to fail! LOLOLLLLL.
Posted by Westlake, son! on October 29, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 20
You can't possibly be that stupid, Westlake. Please tell me it ain't so. (Ever hear of garnishing bank accounts?)
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on October 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Add a comment