landis sued by uci?

[ebandit]

.............................................................................

 

[spalco]

McQuack recently said they still haven't been able to serve him, at least implying (if not outright saying, I don't remeber the exact quote) he's hiding from it.

 

[ebandit]

thanks!

thanks! that was my take on things

that there is no uci lawsuit..............just covering 'threats'

hence my surprise that the quote from another forum member went unnoticed

 

[marcozero]

thanks! that was my take on things

that there is no uci lawsuit..............just covering 'threats'

There is legal action against him here in Switzerland.

The court has not been able to contact Landis to notify him of the legal action taken against him by UCI on May 2011. The department of justice then published in it's official paper a call to Landis to make his position known.

This is how I understand this article (french): http://www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/floyd-landis-doit-repondre-justice-vaudoise/story/13753231

See also this: http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/uci-files-defamation-suit-against-floyd-landis_171011

So yes there is a lawsuit against him and Landis has until september 12 to reply. What happens if he does not is not clear to me, maybe judgement in absentia?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Hamilton better watch out...

Irrespective of the french article which I am incapable of understanding, I still think there is no lawsuit. Floyd isn't hard to find from what I hear, so the bull**** about not being able to find him is just that, bull****.

 

[marcozero]

I still think there is no lawsuit. Floyd isn't hard to find from what I hear, so the bull**** about not being able to find him is just that, bull****.

I don't think our courts are playing games. Floyd didn't respond so they're publishing in the official paper as the law requires. If they do this it means there is legal action against him.

Maybe Floyd is not hard to find but if the letter they sent to the address they have is not answered what do you expect them to do? Hire a PI or send someone in the US to serve him? Alert Interpol or ask the US for an extradition?

What I would like to see now is what Floyd said about UCI, Hein and Pat being confirmed by what happens in the Armstrong case and UCI to withdraw its lawsuit because it is afraid of that.

 

[MarkvW]

Hamilton better watch out...

Irrespective of the french article which I am incapable of understanding, I still think there is no lawsuit. Floyd isn't hard to find from what I hear, so the bull**** about not being able to find him is just that, bull****.

It looks like Marcozero is talking about notice by publication. It could be a preliminary to a default judgment.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It looks like Marcozero is talking about notice by publication. It could be a preliminary to a default judgment.

Notice by publication has not happened from what I read. Past that, they can get a default judgment all they want, but I doubt very seriously they will have any luck getting any ruling enforced in the US.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I don't think our courts are playing games. Floyd didn't respond so they're publishing in the official paper as the law requires. If they do this it means there is legal action against him.

Maybe Floyd is not hard to find ......

He's not hiding out, that's for sure. Is this a situation where it is up to the uci to drag him into Swiss court? The courts doing what is required of them and that's it?

My pessimistic view is it is more uci theater. Having allegations appear in the media works for them as it carries less authority than the courts. There's no way the uci wants their corruption revealed in court.

 

[LauraLyn]

Hamilton better watch out...

Irrespective of the french article which I am incapable of understanding, I still think there is no lawsuit. Floyd isn't hard to find from what I hear, so the bull**** about not being able to find him is just that, bull****.

There is a lawsuit, including claims and counter-claims.

It is real.

Neither the Swiss or the US authorities have been able to serve Landis.

The courts won't play in Switzerland. I am sure Landis is aware of this.

Probably we will hear something more soon.

 

[marcozero]

Notice by publication has not happened from what I read.

Where do you read this? Notice by publication is exactly what the paper I linked to described. It reported the publication from the court, not some UCI noise.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Have they checked the pizza joints or maybe out back behind the carwash?

 

[MacRoadie]

Neither the Swiss or the US authorities have been able to serve Landis.

Funny, seeing as how he was in a federal court room in San Diego, just two Fridays ago. Must have snuck in the back door...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Where do you read this? Notice by publication is exactly what the paper I linked to described. It reported the publication from the court, not some UCI noise.

I misread your earlier post to say that they hadn't done it yet.

Fine, there is an actual suit. Good luck getting an American court to enforce a judgment for something that he would not guilty of in the US. See, in the US, they are public figures (UCI, Fat *******, and Hein), so all Floyd has to do is believe what he said was true, and they get bupkis. Let them publish their notice and make their judgment. Who cares? Add me to the suit! Another country in Europe Floyd will never visit again (maybe even all of them if there is something in the EU charter that would enforce the judgment in all EU countries). I don't think Floyd is all worked up about it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

There is a lawsuit, including claims and counter-claims.

It is real.

Neither the Swiss or the US authorities have been able to serve Landis.

The courts won't play in Switzerland. I am sure Landis is aware of this.

Probably we will hear something more soon.

Meh, who cares?

They "won't play?" What is this, some smack-down with fondue? I am guessing the US authorities have known precisely where he has been the whole time. It isn't their job to serve him so who cares?

"It is real"...not if you will never get the judgment enforced in the US it isn't. It is just some hot air bull**** that will cost the UCI some money and Landis nothing.

 

[MacRoadie]

Good luck getting an American court to enforce a judgment for something that he would not guilty of in the US. See, in the US, they are public figures (UCI, Fat *******, and Hein), so all Floyd has to do is believe what he said was true, and they get bupkis.

Exactly. Can anyone say "vexatious litigation"?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Not to mention that there is no personal jurisdiction. Landis didn't make any statements THERE, he made them in the US. So their case will never see anything like an actual application of the judgment regardless. Here, hold out your hand and let me give you what the UCI will get from Landis...let me unzip first.

 

[Elagabalus]

Meh, who cares?

They "won't play?" What is this, some smack-down with fondue? I am guessing the US authorities have known precisely where he has been the whole time. It isn't their job to serve him so who cares?

"It is real"...not if you will never get the judgment enforced in the US it isn't. It is just some hot air bull**** that will cost the UCI some money and Landis nothing.

Yep. Roman Pollanski anyone? Karma's a ***** ...

 

[QuickStepper]

It's very common for service of process to be made by publication if the defendant cannot be found within the jurisdiction where the case is pending. I have no idea what Swiss law is, but if the defendant is known to be living and residing outside of Switzerland (e.g., living in a tent in the San Gabriel mountains of California), this would probably negate any service of process by publication under U.S. law.

I mention this because even if service is valid in Switzerland and the UCI gets a judgment against Floyd in a Swiss court, most U.S. courts would have difficulty enforcing such a judgment. Thus I agree with Chewbacca when he writes Floyd probably doesn't have much to be worried about. If he still has assets left in Europe, then he should be concerned, but from what we've all read, that just isn't the case.


The U.S. has no treaty with Switzerland (or any other country) pursuant to which foreign judgments are automatically recognized. Enforcement has to be by way of a separate suit commenced here in the U.S. seeking to enforce the judgment. The U.S. court will then determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment according to U.S. law.

For those interested, see the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (13 U.L.A. 261 (1986) and the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, 13 U.L.A. 149 (1986). But see also Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F. 2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986); Matter of Colorado Corp., 531 F. 2d 463 (1976); Clarkson Co., Ltd. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624 (1976). (Sorry for that last bit, but I threw it in just in case Chewbacca or any other lawyer here wanted to check it out).

 

[LauraLyn]

Meh, who cares?

They "won't play?" What is this, some smack-down with fondue? I am guessing the US authorities have known precisely where he has been the whole time. It isn't their job to serve him so who cares?

"It is real"...not if you will never get the judgment enforced in the US it isn't. It is just some hot air bull**** that will cost the UCI some money and Landis nothing.

Perhaps it is a bit complicated for you. It really has nothing to do with fondue.

It is the job of the US authorities to serve Landis when requested to by the Swiss authorities. Your guess is not very educated.

"Personal jurisdiction" is not a legal term, in the US or in Switzerland. Landis will be smarter than this.

In any event, more will come out on this in the coming days.

It is just important that people realize that the suit is real and that the links by Marcozero help us to update our knowledge and understanding.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It's very common for service of process to be made by publication if the defendant cannot be found within the jurisdiction where the case is pending. I have no idea what Swiss law is, but if the defendant is known to be living and residing outside of Switzerland (e.g., living in a tent in the San Gabriel mountains of California), this would probably negate any service of process by publication under U.S. law.

I mention this because even if UCI were to get a judgment against Floyd in a Swiss court, if service is accomplished by publication when he's known to be outside the jurisdiction, most U.S. courts would have difficulty enforcing such a judgment. Thus I agree with Chewbacca when he writes Floyd probably doesn't have much to be worried about. If he still has assets left in Europe, then he should be concerned, but from what we've all read, that just isn't the case.


The U.S. has no treaty with Switzerland (or any other country) pusuant to which foreign judgments are automatically recognized. Enforcement has to be by way of a separate suit commenced here in the U.S. seeking to enforce the judgment. The U.S. court will then determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment according to U.S. law.

For those interested, see the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (13 U.L.A. 261 (1986) and the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, 13 U.L.A. 149 (1986). But see also Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F. 2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986); Matter of Colorado Corp., 531 F. 2d 463 (1976); Clarkson Co., Ltd. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624 (1976). (Sorry for that last bit, but I threw it in just in case Chewbacca or any other lawyer here wanted to check it out).

Nope, wrong answer counselor: Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick EDIT: Wrong case. I will find the right one, but irrespective, the Swiss court has no personal jurisdiction over a statement made inside the US by a US citizen.

Floyd didn't make the statements in Switzerland, he made them in the US. They have no personal jurisdiction. The court will only determine that issue, and then throw it out.

 

[Digger]

There is a lawsuit, including claims and counter-claims.

It is real.
Neither the Swiss or the US authorities have been able to serve Landis.

The courts won't play in Switzerland. I am sure Landis is aware of this.

Probably we will hear something more soon.

Proof please, or a link.

 

[MarkvW]

A Swiss lawyer's take on enforcing Swiss Judgments in the US:

http://www.gronerlaw.ch/litigation/?L=1

Here's a copy of the Uniform Act, as enacted by Hawaii (I expect it's the same in form as every other state that has adopted it):

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/Bills/SB119_.HTM


The "seriously inconvenient" clause is a reason why a State court may reject a Swiss judgment. No doubt McBruggen was taking advantage of Floyd's relative poverty when he filed the suit in Switzerland.

There may also be problems with notice. I'm not asserting that such a lawsuit really exists. But I've no reason to disbelieve Marcozero. But see . . .

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-vs-landis-the-missing-lawsuit

 

[QuickStepper]

Perhaps it is a bit complicated for you. It really has nothing to do with fondue.

It is the job of the US authorities to serve Landis when requested to by the Swiss authorities. Your guess is not very educated.

"Personal jurisdiction" is not a legal term, in the US or in Switzerland. Landis will be smarter than this.

In any event, more will come out on this in the coming days.

It is just important that people realize that the suit is real and that the links by Marcozero help us to update our knowledge and understanding.

None of what you write is so. We (the U.S.) have no treaty with Switzerland regarding providing assistance for service of process, and it is not the job of U.S. authorities to serve Landis on behalf of someone filing suit in Switzerland.

There are procdures for service of foreign suits under the Hague Convention, but that's not what MarcoZero wrote the UCI has tried to accomplish.

Also, in a prior post, you said there are "counterclaims" in this UCI suit. Do you even know what a counter-claim is? How can there be a counter-claim when Landis has not responded to any attempted service of process?

And your comment about "personal jurisdiction" not being a legal term simply belies the fact that you simply do not understand how judgments are obtained and enforced. "Personal jurisdiction" (or in personam jurisdiction, is clearly a legal term and a fundamental concept in the law.

Without personal jurisdiction, no court can enter a valid judgment agaisnt a defendant under U.S. law.

 

[MarkvW]

Nope, wrong answer counselor: Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick EDIT: Wrong case. I will find the right one, but irrespective, the Swiss court has no personal jurisdiction over a statement made inside the US by a US citizen.

Floyd didn't make the statements in Switzerland, he made them in the US. They have no personal jurisdiction. The court will only determine that issue, and then throw it out.

I think Floyd made the complained-of statement in Germany.