Taubman Co. v. Webfeats (Lawsuit)

NOTE: The information and commentary contained in this database entry are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information is likely to be in dispute. Information contained in this entry is current as of the last event mentioned in the "Description" section below; additional proceedings might have taken place in this matter since this event.


minor corrections

I don't know if it's considered tacky for one of the parties to a lawsuit to comment on a posting about that suit, but...

• There's a typo in the third paragraph from the end, the word "that" is duplicated.

• You say "Mishkoff initially indicated that he would settle, but then refused to sign the agreement." That makes it sound like I backed out of something to which I had already agreed, which is the exact opposite of what happened. I would suggest something like "Mishkoff initially indicated that he would settle, but then refused to sign the agreement when Taubman imposed new terms." (I think that something like "Taubman and Mishkoff agreed to settle, but the settlement broke down when Taubman refused to honor the agreement" would be even better, but I'm guessing that you won't go for that, even though it's more accurate than your characterization.)

• You say that "the parties eventually settled," but we did not. Taubman moved to dismiss the case, and we agreed. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the word "settled" implies more than just an agreement to dismiss the case.

Other than those minor points, it's a good article, you've managed to succinctly capture the essence of a complex case.

Yes, It's Appropriate to Comment

It's definitely appropriate for a party to comment on a posting in our database.  We want to collect information from all possible sources.  I appreciate your clarifications and I've fixed the typo you found.  Thanks as well for the positive assessment of our work.