Where have you been Master of Pain?

Ive been running Speed Density for a year and a half.
I have no MAF.

 

Tim, (if you can say & assuming it is settled), what was the suit over?

 

Both runs were starting temp of 179 Coolant. So I don't think it was heat soak nor did I caRE if one or the other had more horse power. I went with looks. I just thought it was a big enough differance to post. I agree 3-4 hp is nothing but 11 is.

 

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12023, *

ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. VORTECH ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 99-2165 JWL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12023
July 15, 1999, Decided
July 16, 1999, Filed; July 16, 1999, Entered on the Docket


Plaintiff corporation sued defendant corporation in a Kansas federal court alleging that defendant made false and misleading representations about certain products in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a). Defendant had previously commenced a lawsuit against plaintiff in a California federal court and, therefore, moved to transfer plaintiff's action to California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) (1999). The court found that under the specific circumstances of the case, granting defendant's motion would advance the interests of justice by conserving judicial resources. Further, although the claims filed by defendant in the prior California suit did not arise out of the same set of facts, the court found that there was substantial similarity and overlap between the two actions. Accordingly, defendant's motion to transfer was granted.

Want the whole thing?

 

I. Facts

The plaintiff, Accessible Technologies, Inc. ("ATI"), is a Kansas corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Lenexa, Kansas. Defendant, Vortech Engineering, Inc. ("Vortech"), is a California corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Oxnard, California. Plaintiff and defendant are direct competitors in manufacturing and distributing aftermarket automotive superchargers and supercharger systems.

The plaintiff alleges [*2] that Vortech made repeated false and misleading representations about both its own and ATI's superchargers' effectiveness to increase internal combustion engine horsepower and torque. The plaintiff asserts that the misrepresentations constitute a violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The plaintiff further alleges that Vortech tortiously interfered with ATI's prospective business advantage by communicating the misrepresentations to the plaintiff's customers and business relations. Also, the plaintiff alleges Vortech engaged in common law unfair competition by intending to deceive and confuse the public.

Vortech had previously commenced a lawsuit against ATI in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In that action, Vortech asserts Lanham Act violations and unfair-competition claims based on alleged false and misleading statements regarding ATI's claims of superior relative performance of its superchargers in comparison to Vortech's superchargers. Vortech filed this earlier California action on April 28, 1998, approximately one year prior to the filing of the current case before this court.

 

IV. Conclusion

In objecting to Vortech's transfer motion, ATI relies heavily on the general rule that the plaintiff's choice of forum is given significant weight. Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992). Giving this due weight to plaintiff's choice of forum, the court is nevertheless convinced that the balance is tipped in favor of transfer and that this result will promote the interests of justice contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Transfer of ATI's action to the Central District of California will provide for a more efficient and equitable administration of justice than could be had in simultaneous litigation in two separate districts on issues that are so closely [*11] related.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT defendant's motion to transfer action (Doc. 7) is hereby granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of this court shall transmit the court file along with a copy of this order to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).


it appears the case was transfered, but I can't find what happened in California

 

 

Each side accused the other of false advertising with respect to supercharger efficiency, horsepower gains, intercooler effectiveness, and other related matters.

Five years and about a zillion dollars in attorney's fees later, the cases settled on confidential terms.

 

That sounds like a good temp. I stand corrected.

But I'm confused by this response. Earlier you stated that you "let the motor cool for both runs."

 

So whats 1/3 of a zillion dollars?

 

I had over 10 dyno runs paid for in 1 day by C&L to test their 80mm MAF back in 99.

1)stock 325 rwhp

2)stock with ~12" K&N air filter 325 RWHP.***************

3)stock with stock with ~12" K&N air filter and C&L MAF 325 rwhp.

4)custom chip on stock 355 RWHP

5)custom chip with ~12" K&N air filter 355 RWHP.

6)custom chip with ~12" K&N air filter and C&L MAF 355 rwhp.

7)pissed off C&L with retuned ~12" K&N air filter and C&L MAF 355 rwhp.

8)pissed off C&L with retuned ~12" K&N air filter and C&L MAF 355 rwhp.

9)pissed off C&L with retuned ~12" K&N air filter and C&L MAF 355 rwhp.

10)pissed off C&L with retuned ~12" K&N air filter and C&L MAF 355 rwhp.

I would guess that there was about 30 minutes inbetween runs with a large fan @ ~40 degrees inside/garage door opened.

On a 99, a CAI filter and/or MAF doesn't do s&^T, sorry but it's been that way for years.