Sotis vs. IANTD

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Help lol
I can't tell if the court decided the IANTD standards and procedures were a contract (under the law) between the agency and the instructor or not.
So contract or no contract? Or did they not make a decision on that matter?
 
Or did they not make a decision on that matter?
They decided it was outside of the purvue of what Sotis asked for, so they wouldn't decide.
 
This might answer that for you as it did for me: Declaratory Judgment

The critical thing about an action for a DJ, and what distinguishes it from other causes of action, has to do with what relief is being sought. It's very limited.

A DJ doesn't do anything but "declare" and "clarify" the legal rights of the parties. It doesn't result in damages and it doesn't order anyone to do anything.

Example: A and B have an ongoing contract and they disagree over the meaning of one of the provisions. A DJ action would ask the Court to determine the meaning of the provision and settle it once and for all so that A and B know how to perform in the future.

If you want damages, you'd have to make a claim for breach of contract. If you want the other side to do something or refrain from doing something, you need to ask for an injunction. So, in the above example, if you wanted anything more than simply a finding from the Court about what the contract means - like damages for past non-performance -- you'd have to plead a breach of contract claim. If you wanted an order compelling the other party to do something, or refrain from doing it, you'd need to plead for an injunction. Those claims may overlap factually, but they are distinct legal remedies and they need to be specifically asked for.

All that said, and with the disclaimer that I only know what I read in the last couple of attachments, it looks like a bit of a mess. Sotis pleaded for things that were probably beyond purely declaratory relief (an order requiring reinstatement, which would be injunctive in nature). It also seems pretty clear from the order that the plaintiff is not putting on a very robust case. In short, looks like a pretty half-assed effort.
 
See upstream for D's summary judgment motion.

"... counsel for Plaintiffs did concede at the hearing on Defendant's Motion that Add Helium had recently gone out of business."
(Page 3/8, ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 18-111105-CA, 190712)​

yet the day after that order was handed down by the court, AH was still posting on FB and their website is up and running.

Would take some serious balls to lie to the judge. Wonder what the truth is?
 
well.. did anyone think he would not press on? Sotis is a lot of things, persistent is one of them. If that is him, not even one bit shocked. What should shock me but doesn't is how many divers will still go to him for training.
 
Forgive my ignorance, but as the Nexus website has virtually no information on it. What is the tie in with Add Helium.
Excluding the address AFAIK Add Helium was the only Florida/USA distributor for:
Nautec Valves Nautec 230 Bar Valve with M18 threads for carbon fiber cylinders - made in Germany! though I note that they have now lost this relationship Partner which could make their fulfilling any orders challenging...
rEvo rebreathers rEvo Micro RMS with NERD Secondary Rebreather
and dodgy Carbon wrapped cylinders that aren't rated, tested or certified for underwater use Carbon Fiber Cylinder - 2 liter
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom