Mark Zaid

The Pennsylvania Superior Court denied without opinion our request for reconsideration. Yesterday, we filed a Petition for Review to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. An appeal to this court is not one of right. It has to be accepted. The defendants' response is due in 15 days. 

We will continue to keep the community up to date on significant developments.

Board Members:

This is to update you all on the status of the litigation. On Friday, November 1, 2019, we filed a Petition for Reconsideration. Essentially, we requested that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, both the panel of three judges who heard the case and issued the opinion, as well as all members of the Court, reconsider the decision. This is also known as an "en banc" review, which means we asked for the entire Court to evaluate the arguments and reverse the decision of their colleagues. The Plaintiffs have an opportunity to respond before the Court considers the arguments.

I will continue to keep everyone updated. 

I wanted to alert everyone to a decision that was issued by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which is the appellate court that heard the appeal in the current lawsuit, on October 18, 2019. The Court has reversed the decision of the trial court to dismiss the case outright on summary judgment. This decision did not determine the liability of any party but held that as a matter of law the lower court should not have reached the decisions it did, i.e., the decisions were for the jury to determine rather than the court.

I can state outright that we believe the Superior Court decision contained numerous and significant errors of fact and law. The defending parties are considering all available options as to next steps.

You can read the decision here:  

Appellate Court Decision

To CGC Community -

After the trial court dismissed their action in its entirety, the Defendants appealed to Superior Court, which is the next level appellate court.

I wanted to let you all know that oral arguments are scheduled to be held on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, at 530 Walnut Street, 17th floor, Philadelphia. Court begins at 10 am, but we are 9th on the list so we suspect oral arguments (15 minutes each side) will be in the early afternoon. But that can always change.

The proceedings are open to the public so we encourage anyone in the Philadelphia area to come watch the arguments. 

The fact that we prevailed on summary judgment before the trial court, especially in Philadelphia, says a lot. For a number of years, the City of Philadelphia has ranked near or at the top of the list of "hellholes", locations where plaintiffs are perceived to have an incredible advantage. Yet, we prevailed solely on the submission of written filings.

We remain steadfast in our view that nothing will change, notwithstanding of course that litigation can always be unpredictable. That said, even the report of their expert comic book witness supports our position that the involved issues constitute opinions and at no time states that any comment was defamatory in nature, which is what you would normally expect to see in an expert report (and I have served as an expert witness in several cases myself).

It is likely an appellate decision will not be issued for several months and I shall, of course, report back to the Boards when that occurs.

10 hours ago, comicwiz said:

One follow-up, who did the courts use to form an opinion on "standard/accepted" and "rogue" restoration? How were they able to maintain impartiality?

The Court based its opinion on the information provided to it by both parties. Evidence on restoration was provided by way of deposition transcripts of the Meyers, Matt Nelson and Kenny Sanderson. Harshen Patel and Paul Litch were also deposed. IGB also relied upon a submitted statement by Steve Borock. 

Obviously CGC's evidence was considered more persuasive by the Judge.

10 hours ago, comicwiz said:

There is an assertion in the "court opinion" that restoration work is generally reversible. The opinion is indoctrinated in the belief of the "expert" who leads this into a direction to prove IGB is, as someone else here described it, "another level." To clarify my question, one of the main arguments for "reversible" work is to allow anyone during the ownership chain to decide whether they want to return the work to an unrestored state. If we are to believe everything we've been told about how IGB's work makes it impossible to know where the work starts and ends, I would like to apply this to actual methods that reflect this concern. More specifically, how is some of the work Classics does, including leafcasting, reversible?

And you are once again asking a question about restoration. So I once again direct you to contact CCS, Matt Nelson or Kenny Sanderson. And if you want to know whether IG's work is reversible or not, I suggest you contact IGB directly. 

15 hours ago, comicwiz said:

How is Classics leafcasting work reversible, and please don't tell me add water.

If you want to ask me a legal question, by all means. For restoration expertise, ask Matt.

On 1/26/2019 at 12:01 PM, the blob said:

BTW, I was joking about the submissions, that would be unethical (and illegal for me given my position)...

I didn't think you were being serious! 

FYI, the Meyers have filed a Notice of Appeal.

FYI, the Meyers have filed a Notice of Appeal. 

Just now, kav said:

Can you elaborate?

Honestly, I so dislike the revamped boards. I find it much more difficult to deal with and that post wasn't supposed exist!

1 minute ago, Dark Knight said:

I read most of it and definitely great news to the defendants!  Very interesting read and a lot of information on what has been happening with this case.  The Meyers restoration techniques (if you can even call it restoration) is on its own level.  The fact that it is almost impossible to tell which parts are of the actual book and which are artificially done is scary to think.  Also, the aggressive nature of the restoration: unnatural feel, feels like cardboard, heavy gloss, etc.  Can you imagine how a buyer would feel about this without any knowledge of the techniques and agents/chemicals are used on their book? Looks like a recreation rather than restoration..  Uhh golden glue? never heard of it and don't want to know what it does to a comic.  CGC even mentioned that they caught a fake cover on one of the books..   Unreal..

I liked how Heritage mentioned that their restored books should be placed in a different colored label exclusive only to IGB or books of this restorative practice.  

Please note that at no time did CGC, or anyone to my knowledge, ever catch a "fake cover" on of the Meyers' books.

I am pleased to report that today the Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial District in Philadelphia granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CGC et al. and dismissed the lawsuit filed by Matthew & Emily Meyers, and their company, in its entirety. A copy of the decision is available to read here:

https://docdro.id/h3MHM4Y

The Meyers have 30 days to appeal.

As the Court noted, "truth is an absolute defense...."

23 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

CGC needs to be a little transparent here. They shipped the books to the wrong address. The person who they were addressed to (not the submitter) denies receiving them. Everyone should be on the lookout for the books because it is possible, though unlikely, that the person now in possession does not know their real value.

Respectfully, I don't see exactly what type of transparency was needed here. There was an unfortunate rare shipping error. The books have gone missing despite having been received by someone according to FedEx. As a result, we have been unable to locate the books so we took the appropriate steps in response. We have taken full responsibility for the mishap and have been in constant, timely contact with the owner of the books and we will be making proper restitution after full discussion and mutual agreement with the individual. In the meantime, the relevant law enforcement authority was notified of the disappearance of the books in case they turn up and it is determined a crime was committed. 

The relevant facts that the community needed, i.e., that two significant books have gone missing, was then disseminated in the hope the books will turn up.

If anyone has further concerns, please feel free to contact me directly. Because there is nothing further that needs to be discussed here, we are going to lock this thread.

3 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

I would second that....what area of the USA should be focused on and were the books lost in transit?

There is no geographical limitation nowadays. It could be anywhere in the US, in fact the world. I had a comic stolen from a DC convention once and it showed up in Detroit.

That said, they went missing in the North East.

To our Community:

Please be advised that two books have gone missing:

Pep Comics #30 CGC 8.5 cert #1998519001

Catman Comics #20 CGC 9.0 cert #1998519002

I have attached uncertified photos. Obviously it is possible one or both of the books might have been cracked out of their holders.

If you come across a copy of either or both books that could possibly be one of these, please contact either Harshen Patel at hpatel@collectiblesgroup.com or me at Mark@MarkZaid.com.

The best protection our community has comes from within. Thank you!

Mark

To our Community:

Please be advised that two books have gone missing:

Pep Comics #30 CGC 8.5 cert #1998519001

Catman Comics #20 CGC 9.0 cert #1998519002

I have attached uncertified photos. Obviously it is possible one or both of the books might have been cracked out of their holders.

If you come across a copy of either or both books that could possibly be one of these, please contact either Harshen Patel at hpatel@collectiblesgroup.com or me at Mark@MarkZaid.com.

The best protection our community has comes from within. Thank you!

Mark

To CGC Community:

I wanted to update everyone on the lawsuit that was filed on December 13, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County by Matthew & Emily Meyers, as well as by their business Investment Grade Books, LLC. Named as defendants were CGC, CCS, Matt Nelson and Heritage Auctions, Inc. In all five claims were asserted against the defendants. The Meyers claim (1) Defamation and (2) False Light, while IGB alleges (3) Intentional Interference with Existing Business Relations and (4) Intentional Interference with Prospective Contractual Relations. Both the Meyers and IGB are jointly pursuing a claim of (5) Civil Conspiracy. For those not familiar with the litigation, you can download a copy of the Complaint from https://www.docdroid.net/Dx6w7uS/complaint.pdf.html.

For much of the last 18 months we have been engaging in the exchange of written discovery and depositions. We deposed both Meyers and they deposed Harshen Patel, Matt Nelson, Paul Litch and a number of Heritage employees. Most recently they named Steve Borock as one of their expert witnesses.

On June 21, 2018, all the plaintiffs filed Motions for Summary Judgment, i.e., that there are no set of material facts that remain unknown and judgment should be entered against the defendants as a matter of law. The Meyers' response is currently due at the end of this month. You can read our Memorandum of Law in support of Summary Judgment by clicking here: https://www.scribd.com/document/383525574/CGC-Summary-Judgment-Memo-of-Law6-21-18.

A ruling is not expected until at least the end of this year, and possibly next year.

Mark S. Zaid, Esq.

Lead Counsel

Sounds like a lot of conclusory speculation out of the plaintiffs. I don't know if the PA courts are good at tossing things on sj. Any reason you're not removing to federal court?

 

Just so everyone knows, I won't of course comment on legal strategy but I will post updated information as relevant events happen.

 

Hey Mark,

 

If this actually goes to trial, may I recommend you re-enact the scene from "And Justice for All".

 

I was thinking more of "A Few Good Men"

Sounds like a lot of conclusory speculation out of the plaintiffs. I don't know if the PA courts are good at tossing things on sj. Any reason you're not removing to federal court?

Just so everyone knows, I won't of course comment on legal strategy but I will post updated information as relevant events happen.

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

So, that explains why I couldn't find this thread in question when I went looking for it earlier this morning.

 

Certainly could be presented as evidence for an argument against CGC since it could be seen as supporting one of the claims being made by the plaintiffs in this action here.

Please see my comments posted above. It is not evidence of anything of the sort.