Bobby Blotzer’s WBS, Inc. asks for court to reconsider decision favouring Juan Croucier
As expected, drummer Bobby Blotzer has not given up on his intention to continue his group version as the “real” Ratt.
Blotzer via the company WBS, Inc. has filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion decision from the United States District Court, in C.D. California that was rendered on November 8, 2016 with respect to WBS, INC. v. CROUCIER (the “Decision”). In the Decision, the court had ruled that WBS, Inc. could not establish that it had an ownership interest in the Ratt trademarks and therefore its trademarks claim failed.
The following message was posted earlier today on the Facebook page run by Blotzer‘s version of Ratt:
Happy Wednesday RATT‘lers!
Here is some insight reading for your brain.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WBS vs CROUCIER
What Blotzer has made available on his Ratt website is essentially the written arguments dated December 13, 2o16 that WBS, Inc. is relying upon for its motion for reconsideration. WBS, Inc.‘s motion materials indicate that the actual motion for reconsideration will be heard on Monday, January 9, 2017.
Interestingly, the first advanced position in the motion materials from Blotzer‘s WBS, Inc. is that the court did not have all of the necessary evidence when it made its motion decision back on November 8, 2016 in that the issue of whether WBS, Inc. had an interest in the Ratt trademarks had already been decided in favour of WBS, Inc. by a court back in 2002.
Part I or the Introduction of WBS, Inc.‘s motion materials states:
“This Court made findings on evidence and thereupon ruled on the Parties’ MSJs relying on the evidence presented before it; however, the evidence relied upon was filed and presented to this Court in bad faith by the Defendant. This Court did not have previous state Court minute orders, findings of fact, and rulings when deciding the MSJs in this action. The Defendant recognized this deficiency in the Court’s record of information in this case and used that as an opportunity to perpetrate a fraud on this Court. The Defendant and the Attorneys knew, or should have known, they were filing pleadings and declarations with this Court and in the record with information contrary to previously adjudicated issues. Regardless, this Court did not have the complete evidence it needed to rule on the MSJs. In addition, Defendant’s counterclaims should have been precluded by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Moreover, this Court did not find triable issues of fact where there were issues that should have gone to the jury.”