699:
California Case No. CV 07-06295 JFW (Ex), entitled AMIR CYRUS AHANCHIAN, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. XENON PICTURES, INC., a
California corporation; CKRUSH, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAM MACCARONE, an individual; PRESTON LACY, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, shall be and is hereby DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY, WITH PREJUDICE. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
60:. Both discussions have clearly found consensus that this person and this case have not been shown to meet our notability guidelines, and as such, there is consensus to delete. However, I rarely decline good-faith requests for draftspace work, and in this case there is a possibility that one notable article may be rescued where two cannot; hence, I'm draftifying. I am going to
64:
a little, and require that, given the clear consensus in the AfDs, a) this article/these articles only be recreated via AfC, b) these discussions be linked in a way that the AfC reviewer will read them, and c) some source material be included that is new, substantive, reliable, and independent of the
454:
And the fact that it was listed as a "top ten copyright case for
November 2010"? That's not much of a distinction. I'm open to seeing some numbers, but I'm guessing of the twelve courts of appeal (1st-11th circuits plus federal circuit in the federal system; virtually none in the state systems) that
688:
By the way: looking at the subsequent history of the case (Amir Cyrus
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures Inc et al, no. 2:07-cv-06295-JFW-E, C.D. Cal. Jan 12, 2011)) on PACER, it was settled and voluntarily dismissed by the parties, so it didn't go on to set any kind of precedent. Here's a docket extract:
639:
While I don't know of any
Knowledge policy against draftifying this, I strongly recommend against it; it's just going to be a waste of time. This is simply not a notable case, and it's never going to be accepted out of draft by anyone who understands the subject matter. If it somehow slips through,
684:
The case stands for the unremarkable proposition, not very different from those present in a number of cases, that when, due to multiple extenuating circumstances, an attorney requests a one-week extension to file a paper from the other party, the other party should be a good guy and allow it; and
375:
The case is notable due to the case laws which resulted from it. The 'Good Cause' law which resulted from the case has been cited over 480 times in
Federal Court Cases in the last decade, that's an average of 4x per month. There are also independent reliable sources which have published in depth
698:
01/12/2011 157 ORDER by Judge John F. Walter. The court, having reviewed the
Stipulation to Dismissal of Action With Prejudice 156 in the above-captioned action made by all parties, and finding good cause, that the above captioned action, United States District Court for the Central District of
406:
established that four-factor legal test? If you would actually read the case, you would see that that standard was established in previous cases and the Ninth
Circuit was just applying it to the particular details of Ahanchian's case. (It's also not a law, but rather a
376:
analysis of the case. Citations for some of these have now been added to the article. The reason they are difficult to find is because of the huge number of sources about other cases which refer to the case laws created from the
Ahanchian v Xenox case.
213:
542:). Exactly one case (believe it or not, the 100th of the first 100 hits) is from outside the Ninth Circuit, which speaks to how non-influential this case is; virtually no courts outside of the case's home circuit have referred to it.
297:
Yes, there are many citations of the case, because the case laws which resulted from it are so important. In-depth summaries and analysis can also be found. Please give me a chance to edit this article and include them. Examples are
685:
even if he's a jerk and doesn't, the judge shouldn't dismiss the case for the late filing. This is an incredibly routine case. If it had been an affirmance rather than a reversal, I doubt it would even have merited an opinion.
704:
I'd really encourage the creating editor to move along to an area that with which they are more familiar, and where they can more accurately assess the notability of the topics they're writing about.
695:
01/10/2011 156 STIPULATION to
Dismiss Case pursuant to settlement agreement reached filed by plaintiff Amir Cyrus Ahanchian. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Daar, Jeffery) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
207:
147:
142:
151:
134:
599:
I would like to move the case back to draftify so that I can do more work on it, I understand what has been said above and would like to work on the article to establish notability.
558:
666:
174:
553:, no. 12-2134 (6th Cir. 2013). Attorneys and law students reading this will note that there's no __ F.3d __ cite. That's not because I don't have it, it's because the
256:, Google, and Google Scholar turns up citations of the case, but no in-depth summaries or analysis. I welcome any editors with access to a proper legal database like
57:
661:
121:
277:
106:
455:
hear copyright appeals, there are probably only twenty or so copyright cases each month. "Top ten in month foo" is not all that impressive, in context.
449:. I'm not impressed that it's been cited by other cases. The case is a decade old; it's a rare case indeed that doesn't get cited in that span of time.
228:
195:
561:("a decision of a court that is not available for citation as precedent because the court deems the case to have insufficient precedential value").
498:
302:
713:
628:
610:
589:
524:
485:
469:
435:
420:
390:
365:
343:
318:
289:
269:
76:
189:
510:: mere citations without significant discussion in other cases (that's the "I'm not impressed that it's been cited by other cases" bit).
459:
If and when it was written up significantly (not merely cited to) in, for example, law review articles, I would likely change my tune.
185:
573:
for the unremarkable proposition that "A district court's decision as to a Rule 6(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion."
138:
235:
640:
maybe by being reviewed by someone unfamiliar with law, it will end back up at AFD again. There's just nothing in here notable.
508:
377:
101:
94:
17:
474:
It has been written up significantly in law review articles, I have posted the links above, and they are in the article too.
245:
130:
82:
643:
The article talks about a purported "Good Cause Law of
Civility" that the case establishes, but there is no such thing. As
339:
503:
305:
201:
115:
111:
692:
12/28/2010 155 NOTICE of Settlement filed by plaintiff Amir Cyrus Ahanchian. (Daar, Jeffery) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
624:
431:
416:
285:
265:
732:
40:
335:
728:
644:
620:
605:
480:
427:
412:
385:
313:
281:
261:
71:
36:
566:
549:
326:– I don't want to mess up the AfD by moving the page midstream, but be aware: the correct title is
221:
352:
334:, with an "N" instead of an "X". If the page is kept, it should be moved to the correct title.
90:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
727:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
652:
600:
475:
397:
380:
308:
67:
669:
380 (1993)) for the pre-existing factors; and that case in turn goes back to another case,
616:
539:
358:
538:. I sampled the first 100 of the 480 cites from Google Scholar (the legal equivalent of
709:
585:
520:
465:
493:
299:
249:
61:
168:
408:
257:
705:
581:
516:
461:
681:, 693 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1982), which presumably goes back even further.
662:
Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership
54:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al
260:
to search for additional sources that could establish notability. –
253:
411:; I'm not sure what led you to call it the "Good Cause law".) –
723:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
615:
Are you going to strike your "keep" comment above? You can't
655:
seems to think it did. A casual look at the case shows that
673:, 95 B. R. 134 (9th Cir. 1982), which itself, according to
447:
without prejudice to re-creation if it ever becomes notable
490:
It doesn't appear to have been. Of the links you posted:
164:
160:
156:
220:
426:
Striking—AmirahBreen has !voted to draftify below. –
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
735:). No further edits should be made to this page.
651:didn't even originate the four-factor test that
276:Note: This discussion has been included in the
547:The one case from outside the Ninth Circuit is
58:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Ahanchian
234:
8:
122:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
515:What law review articles can you cite to?
275:
278:list of Law-related deletion discussions
550:Ott v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
351:Not a particularly notable court case.
131:Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al
83:Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al
7:
24:
659:cites a 1993 Supreme Court case (
107:Introduction to deletion process
580:, the less notable it appears.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
565:(which is a one-page unsigned
246:Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
1:
248:case does not appear to meet
402:What gave you the idea that
714:21:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
629:01:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
611:09:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
590:04:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
525:01:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
486:00:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
470:00:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
436:16:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
421:05:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
391:20:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
366:19:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
344:18:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
319:10:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
290:01:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
270:01:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
97:(AfD)? Read these primers!
77:06:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
752:
404:Ahanchian v Xenon Pictures
52:. Simultaneously closing
725:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
576:The longer I look into
500:; routine news coverage
495:: routine news coverage
505:: law firm newsletter
95:Articles for deletion
567:per curiam decision
675:Pioneer Investment
336:Extraordinary Writ
438:
292:
112:Guide to deletion
102:How to contribute
743:
645:Lord Bolingbroke
621:Lord Bolingbroke
608:
603:
559:unpublished case
483:
478:
428:Lord Bolingbroke
425:
413:Lord Bolingbroke
401:
388:
383:
363:
355:
316:
311:
282:Lord Bolingbroke
262:Lord Bolingbroke
239:
238:
224:
172:
154:
92:
75:
34:
751:
750:
746:
745:
744:
742:
741:
740:
739:
733:deletion review
606:
601:
481:
476:
395:
386:
381:
359:
353:
314:
309:
252:. My search on
181:
145:
129:
126:
89:
86:
66:
50:Delete/draftify
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
749:
747:
738:
737:
719:
718:
717:
716:
702:
701:
700:
696:
693:
686:
682:
679:In re Magouirk
641:
634:
633:
632:
631:
593:
592:
574:
544:
543:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
513:
512:
511:
506:
501:
496:
456:
451:
450:
441:
440:
439:
423:
368:
346:
328:"Ahanchian v.
321:
294:
293:
242:
241:
178:
125:
124:
119:
109:
104:
87:
85:
80:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
748:
736:
734:
730:
726:
721:
720:
715:
711:
707:
703:
697:
694:
691:
690:
687:
683:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
636:
635:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
612:
609:
604:
598:
595:
594:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:
546:
545:
541:
537:
536:Add'l comment
534:
533:
526:
522:
518:
514:
509:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
491:
489:
488:
487:
484:
479:
473:
472:
471:
467:
463:
460:
457:
453:
452:
448:
445:
442:
437:
433:
429:
424:
422:
418:
414:
410:
405:
399:
394:
393:
392:
389:
384:
378:
374:
373:
369:
367:
364:
362:
356:
350:
347:
345:
341:
337:
333:
331:
325:
322:
320:
317:
312:
306:
303:
300:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
237:
233:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:Find sources:
179:
176:
170:
166:
162:
158:
153:
149:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:
123:
120:
117:
113:
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
99:
98:
96:
91:
84:
81:
79:
78:
73:
69:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
724:
722:
678:
674:
670:
660:
656:
648:
647:points out,
596:
577:
570:
562:
554:
548:
535:
458:
446:
443:
403:
371:
370:
360:
348:
329:
327:
323:
243:
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
88:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
677:, cited to
653:AmirahBreen
557:case is an
398:AmirahBreen
208:free images
258:LexisNexis
244:This U.S.
729:talk page
671:In re Dix
657:Ahanchian
649:Ahanchian
619:twice. –
578:Ahanchian
571:Ahanchian
332:Pictures"
68:Vanamonde
65:subject.
37:talk page
731:or in a
667:507 U.S.
597:Draftify
569:) cites
540:WP:GHITS
175:View log
116:glossary
39:or in a
324:Comment
214:WP refs
202:scholar
148:protect
143:history
93:New to
602:Amirah
477:Amirah
444:Delete
382:Amirah
349:Delete
310:Amirah
250:WP:GNG
186:Google
152:delete
62:WP:IAR
617:!vote
361:SPEAK
354:KidAd
330:Xenon
254:JSTOR
229:JSTOR
190:books
169:views
161:watch
157:links
16:<
710:talk
706:TJRC
625:talk
607:talk
586:talk
582:TJRC
521:talk
517:TJRC
482:talk
466:talk
462:TJRC
432:talk
417:talk
409:test
387:talk
372:Keep
340:talk
315:talk
286:talk
280:. –
266:talk
222:FENS
196:news
165:logs
139:talk
135:edit
72:Talk
56:and
563:Ott
555:Ott
236:TWL
173:– (
712:)
665:,
627:)
588:)
523:)
468:)
434:)
419:)
379:.
357:•
342:)
307:.
304:,
301:,
288:)
268:)
216:)
167:|
163:|
159:|
155:|
150:|
146:|
141:|
137:|
708:(
623:(
584:(
519:(
464:(
430:(
415:(
400::
396:@
338:(
284:(
264:(
240:)
232:·
226:·
218:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
188:(
180:(
177:)
171:)
133:(
118:)
114:(
74:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.