Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
VolumeDrive Being Sued!
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

VolumeDrive Being Sued!

mcmyhostmcmyhost Member
edited December 2013 in Providers

Yes this is a repost from WHT

 Data Sales Co., Inc. v. Volumedrive, Inc.
Filed: October 23, 2013 as 3:2013cv02626
Plaintiff: Data Sales Co., Inc.
Defendant: Volumedrive, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

For those that don't know, Data Sales is who they got financing/hardware from.

 

Source

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/pamdce/3:2013cv02626/96153

Thanked by 1karistuck

No Bullcrap VPS Hosting
McMyHost - http://mcmyhost.net

«13

Comments

  • Ouch!

    I AM BACK :)
    Working Windows Server 2012 R2 on 6GB! Beat that!

  • Does anyone have the court documents?

  • @SysAdmin said:
    Does anyone have the court documents?

    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1328931

    Looks like the OP will post it there soon

    Patrick | INIZ
  • agentmishraagentmishra Member, Provider

    it hurts

    skype id : agentmishra, gtalk id : agentmishra, email : [email protected]

  • y am I not surprised =x

  • rds100rds100 Member
    edited December 2013

    Unless the court comes out with a ruling against volumedrive i don't see the big deal there. In USA everyone is suing everyone else for whatever reasons.

    -

  • jarjar Provider
    edited December 2013

    @rds100 said:
    Unless the court comes out with a ruling against volumedrive i don't see the big deal there. In USA everyone is suing everyone else for whatever reasons.

    Ain't that the truth. It's no wonder we're all so on edge these days. Can't hardly look at a person without giving them a reason to sue you. I keep saying lawsuit precedent is as good as written law, it's going to bite us all in the ass.

  • So whats the story - Volumedrive has not paid their lease? Or there is something else?

  • @MarkTurner said:
    So whats the story - Volumedrive has not paid their lease? Or there is something else?

    You didn't hear/read about the fiasco?

    Better start now because you've got a lot to read, 123 pages to be exact.

    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1296858

    No Bullcrap VPS Hosting
    McMyHost - http://mcmyhost.net

  • @MarkTurner said:
    So whats the story - Volumedrive has not paid their lease? Or there is something else?

    Well that seems to be what Burst.net claimed when volumedrive "ran away" from them to their current location. Guess we will find out soon if there is some truth to it, the dates seem to match quite well when you think about it.

  • We are not going to make any comments on any ongoing legal matter.

    Is it not at all unusual for former business partners / competitors to abuse the legal system for frivolous, unsubstantiated claims. Large companies receive frivolous lawsuits all the time.

    We are very confident about the outcome of this case, and there isn't any cause for concern on any services that we provide.

    QuadIX - E3-1230 | 8G | 1TB | 1 Gbps @ $27.95 promo
    QuadIX - Dual L5630 | 32G | 240G SSD | 1 Gbps @ $37.95 promo
    Sales Email: [email protected] (24 x 7) | General Phone: +1 (877) 669-8680

  • No offence but you would say that anyway. Not that I am suggesting you are not being truthful but time will tell.

  • RalliasRallias Member, Provider

    @volumedrive said:
    We are not going to make any comments on any ongoing legal matter.

    Is it not at all unusual for former business partners / competitors to abuse the legal system for frivolous, unsubstantiated claims. Large companies receive frivolous lawsuits all the time.

    We are very confident about the outcome of this case, and there isn't any cause for concern on any services that we provide.

    God damn, talk about a comment.

  • @mcmyhost - I dont really follow the political drama, there is always someone who is not flavour of the month. I have a hard enough time keeping up with the carrier issues.

    So in summary - what are we saying - VD leased some kit of X company, they claim they were not paid(?) and now suing. I dont have access to the legal documents to tell the real case issues. But it seems this is a matter for VolumeDrive's and the plaintiff's lawyers.

    I understand there is an outage at VolumeDrive, how major is that? How many people affected?

  • @volumedrive said:
    We are not going to make any comments on any ongoing legal matter.

    Is it not at all unusual for former business partners / competitors to abuse the legal system for frivolous, unsubstantiated claims. Large companies receive frivolous lawsuits all the time.

    We are very confident about the outcome of this case, and there isn't any cause for concern on any services that we provide.

    Except that they are not business partners or competitors. They are a leasing company that you did not pay. Additionally, you are not a large company targeted in some shakedown

    smh.

  • Someone on WHT paid for all the court docs $5, and they managed to upload them to their site.

    http://turtle.dereferenced.org/~kaniini/volumedrive/

    I had a read through... and Man, i can't believe how much damage josh did to Data Sales.. I mean.. He even gave a fake address and the sheriff report couldn't locate him.. What a joke.

  • @MarkTurner,

    We do not have any outages or issues currently with our network or service.

    QuadIX - E3-1230 | 8G | 1TB | 1 Gbps @ $27.95 promo
    QuadIX - Dual L5630 | 32G | 240G SSD | 1 Gbps @ $37.95 promo
    Sales Email: [email protected] (24 x 7) | General Phone: +1 (877) 669-8680

  • toshosttoshost Member, Provider

    @volumedrive said:
    We are not going to make any comments on any ongoing legal matter.

    Is it not at all unusual for former business partners / competitors to abuse the legal system for frivolous, unsubstantiated claims. Large companies receive frivolous lawsuits all the time.

    We are very confident about the outcome of this case, and there isn't any cause for concern on any services that we provide.

    Wish you all the best Josh and VD

    TOSHOST LTD: : Server Provider Since 2012
    Managed cPanel VPS, Budget VPS, Managed Dedicated, RDP, Windows hosting, cPanel

  • @Foulacy said:

    He even gave a fake address and the sheriff report couldn't locate him.. What a joke.

    This is our mailing address where we receive all of our corporate mail, not a physical address, this is perfectly legal.

    QuadIX - E3-1230 | 8G | 1TB | 1 Gbps @ $27.95 promo
    QuadIX - Dual L5630 | 32G | 240G SSD | 1 Gbps @ $37.95 promo
    Sales Email: [email protected] (24 x 7) | General Phone: +1 (877) 669-8680

  • Maybe those bills could be paid if VolumeDrive CEO sold off a couple of their exotic car(s) ... as mentioned in the WHT thread

  • image

    "We are in a prison drama. This is like The Shawshank Redemption, only with more tunneling through shit and no fucking redemption."
  • matthewvzmatthewvz Member, Provider

    @ihatetonyy said:
    image

  • @doughnet said:
    Maybe those bills could be paid if VolumeDrive CEO sold off a couple of their exotic car(s) ... as mentioned in the WHT thread

    That he got ticketed for DUI in!

    No Bullcrap VPS Hosting
    McMyHost - http://mcmyhost.net

  • Could someone summarize the important points in these documents? :P

  • skaska Disabled
    edited December 2013

    @eric1212 said:
    Could someone summarize the important points in these documents? :P

    Intoductory-Bla-bla, "claims which are being contested"-Bla-Bla, Legal-Bla-Bla.

    Thanked by 1lukesUbuntu
    Make:something
  • Oh my god, all the equipment together costs $107,635.00.....

  • LeeLee Member
    edited December 2013

    From a quick read through, it seems that Burst.net was indeed correct. Bottom line is that VD left the Burst facility with many of the servers, taking them to their current location but should not have.

    The paperwork would suggest that VD is in significant debt to the leasing company and not just recently. It would also seem likely that a condition of getting all the equipment from the leasing company was that they were not allowed to remove said equipment from the Burst.net facility, at least not without permission from the leasing company.

    But they went ahead and did it anyway. Or at least took some. This would again explain why some people were back online eventually but others had their servers left behind, presumably when Burst.net realised what was happening they blocked any further removals.

    The loooooooong thread on WHT about this ended up with many people turning against Burst.net claiming downtime and holding servers hostage was actually Burst's fault and not VD. This claim would 'appear' to show that VD were in fact the ones in the wrong and Burst were not.

    But just my view :P

  • jarjar Provider
    edited December 2013

    @W1V_Lee Interesting summary. It's a tough read no doubt. Question though, if you happened across the answer to this, did Burst hold the servers because the leasing company said they had to remain there? That would be a strange stance to take if the relationship was between VD and the leasing company, unless Burst played the middle man in the transactions in some way.

  • @jarland said:
    W1V_Lee Interesting summary. It's a tough read no doubt. Question though, if you happened across the answer to this, did Burst hold the servers because the leasing company said they had to remain there? That would be a strange stance to take if the relationship was between VD and the leasing company, unless Burst played the middle man in the transactions in some way.

    From what I read Burst wasn't even mentioned? It was only Data Sales complaining, they included all the bills for the servers. I think Burst was just playing middle man.

  • LeeLee Member
    edited December 2013

    @jarland - Yes it specifically states in the paperwork that they were not permitted to remove the equipment from 422 prescott avenue, scranton.

    They have invoices outstanding back to Jan 2013 and owe the leasing company $116,000

    It claims they are illegally in possession of 182 servers.

    Essentially they want to access the equipment at 9 Market Street and take it all back.

  • jarjar Provider

    @W1V_Lee said:
    jarland - Yes it specifically states in the paperwork that they were not permitted to remove the equipment from 422 prescott avenue, scranton.

    They have invoices outstanding back to Jan 2013 and owe the leasing company $116,000

    Just curious why Burst decided to be the enforcer for Data Sales. I'm not sure I'd have the balls ;)

  • @W1V_Lee said:
    jarland - Yes it specifically states in the paperwork that they were not permitted to remove the equipment from 422 prescott avenue, scranton.

    They have invoices outstanding back to Jan 2013 and owe the leasing company $116,000

    Wait, which part was that in...? I must have missed it

  • I am not going back to check which page, you look. I am just stating what I was reading on my other screen.

  • Actually there is quite a lot of interesting info, especially on the inventory and others but meh, too busy.

  • @W1V_Lee said:
    I am not going back to check which page, you look. I am just stating what I was reading on my other screen.

    Whoops, I skipped the top document. It does say they can't be removed from Burst's building.

  • tchentchen Member
    edited December 2013

    @skybucks100 said:
    Oh my god, all the equipment together costs $107,635.00.....

    I've got a tally across all four schedules of $237K - at least at time of purchase. The claim is only for unpaid interest/principal repayment (since feb, 2013) and the missing machines.

    As for Burst.net, the lease agreement 14. Transporation and Installation states "The Equipment is to be installed at the location indicated on the Equipment Schedule." which clearly lists the address for Burst's DC in Scranton, PA. The title still belongs to Data Sales so they asked Burst to lock it down (albeit a bit too late).

  • Bottom line is that it's ligit. If Josh does not pay his bills and return the equipment all those customers on at least those 182 servers are going to get taken away, won't happen for a while but it will come.

    From reading it through, paying the bills is not going to be enough, they want the equipment returned.

  • @tchen said:

    Geesh, VD barked up the wrong tree with this one... I wonder how long this'll span out for and if VD will actually be sued...

  • RalliasRallias Member, Provider

    @skybucks100 said Geesh, VD barked up the wrong tree with this one... I wonder how long this'll span out for and if VD will actually be sued...

    They were already sued. Now it has to go thru the court system.

  • @Rallias said:
    They were already sued. Now it has to go thru the court system.

    Oh they were? I thought those were just threats...

  • @jarland said:
    Just curious why Burst decided to be the enforcer for Data Sales. I'm not sure I'd have the balls ;)

    Not sure its about them being the enforcer. It just seems that Burst agreed with the leasing company that they would not allow the servers to be removed from the Data Center as part of the deal. Makes the leasing company feel safer knowing the servers would not go missing, of course that failed.

    I do wonder if Burst could be held accountable in any way given they agreed to this, but there is no mention of Burst getting tagged in that way.

    I suppose it was good for burst to agree to as it meant they got a few cages filled, it should really not have been hard to prevent them taking servers never mind 182 of them out of the facility unchecked.

    Although from the other thread it appeared Josh gave them a plausible story as to what he was doing whilst really just lying to them in order to get the equipment out.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • drserverdrserver Member, Host Rep

    If DataSales wants their equipment back, they will get it back. So this is no win situation for VD. They must return servers to DS sooner or later.

    $116,000 is another issue, that is solvable. Very bad and almost unsolvable is informing clients about this issue and stay alive.

    Wish you all best VD

    Unmetered servers starting from $12.00 USD p/m. Xeon® E-2134 for $50.00 p/m ||| Xeon® Silver 4110 for $80.00 p/m
    Live server stock ||| Feel free to contact me for custom deal.

  • I've always wondered how they were able to sustain those prices. Gave me headaches trying to price match.

    Serving you the best VPS, Web hosting, dedicated servers and more - Cloud Shards | Query Foundry
    We operate the network AS62638 | Available in Syd AU and Dallas, Los Angeles and NYC USA
  • drserverdrserver Member, Host Rep

    @concerto49 those was really big headaches

    Unmetered servers starting from $12.00 USD p/m. Xeon® E-2134 for $50.00 p/m ||| Xeon® Silver 4110 for $80.00 p/m
    Live server stock ||| Feel free to contact me for custom deal.

  • @rds100 said:
    Unless the court comes out with a ruling against volumedrive i don't see the big deal there. In USA everyone is suing everyone else for whatever reasons.

    No, not everyone in the US is suing everyone else for whatever reason.

  • so are we waiting for VD to deadpool? Not sure to celebrate or mourn.

    Thanked by 1Nick_A

    vpsdash.com - Tips and tricks in life, information and technology news to get things done

  • Curious, BurstNet just moved everything into the new facility. As I remember VD hadn't moved their servers into that facility. So were they supposed to remain in the facility Burst moved from? How could they be sued for removing servers that were never installed in the new facility?

Sign In or Register to comment.