logoalt Hacker News

ElProlactin • today at 8:21 AM • 2 replies • view on HN

> And the process of discovery would be very costly for NVIDIA with depositions from many executives who have better things to do.

You're almost certainly either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what your attorneys told you.

You would never get to discovery with your complaint. If you sued, NVIDIA would win a motion to dismiss in federal court based on your claim being time-barred.

You have no basis to support decades-long tolling. The possibility that, say, NVIDIA knew what it told you was wrong 30 years ago is not good enough under federal pleading standards to get you to discovery. You would need sufficient evidence to support a claim that NVIDIA intentionally lied, which you obviously don't have otherwise you would have mentioned it in your post.

State court (California) has a few wrinkles but the result ends up being the same.

Basically the legal system is designed to prevent fishing expeditions on decades-old claims. You cannot have possession of an agreement and then run to the courts asking for a billion dollars because you failed for three decades to read it carefully.

If you are past the statute of limitations, the bar is intentionally virtually impossibly high.


Replies

Rastonbury • today at 2:34 PM

As I understand it they thought there was a chance Nvidia would settle, since the lawyers worked on contingency instead of telling him not to waste his time

➕ show 1 reply
Majromax • today at 11:43 AM

> You would need sufficient evidence to support a claim that NVIDIA intentionally lied, which you obviously don't have otherwise you would have mentioned it in your post.

Would even an intentional lie act to to reset the limitation period here? The hypothetical lie wasn't a deep secret exposed by some whistleblower, it came to light by... reading the vesting agreement. Since AFAIK limitation periods run from "know or ought to have known," I can't see a viable construction to keep the dispute live after 30 years.

➕ show 1 reply