I have been told that an abeyance in the 2014 lawsuit has occurred.
I was also told that the reason was to allow the FAA to "obtain more public opinion" whatever that means.
The abeyance order includes UAS America LLC who is representing Raphael Pirkers the drone flyer who filmed a commercial for the University of Virginia, and their own interests.
I did a little research on Wikipedia and found this regarding an abeyance
Here is the document, it does not list the AMA but rather UAS America Fund LLC as petitioners it consolidated the AMA case 14-1158
Just found an Abeyance order here is the website:
http://crschmidt.net/courtdocs/UAS-America-Abeyance.pdf
http://crschmidt.net/courtdocs/UAS-America-Abeyance.pdf
Settling litigation
Abeyance can be used in cases where parties are interested in temporarily settling litigation while still holding the right to seek relief later if necessary. This may be considered a desirable outcome in cases where the party to the lawsuit is an
organization with a transient membership and political perspective. The use of abeyance in such instances can
allow such an organization to 'settle' with the party without officially binding its actions in the future, should a new group of decision makers within the organization choose to pursue taking the dispute to court.
For example, abeyance was used as a settlement method in a Canadian lawsuit involving the
University of Victoria Students' Society (UVSS), the
BCCLA, and a campus pro-life club to whom the UVSS denied funding. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit by holding the case in abeyance in return for the UVSS temporarily giving resources back to the club. With this arrangement, the pro-life club held on to its right to immediately reopen the case again should the UVSS deny resources to
the club in the future, and the UVSS
was able to avoid an expensive legal battle it did not have the will to pursue at the time. Thus the use of abeyance provided the security of a settlement for the pro-life campus club, while preserving the student society's voting membership's ability to take the matter back to court should they choose in the future to deny resources to the club.[SUP]
[12][/SUP]
Other court cases may be held in abeyance when the issue may be resolved by another court or another event. This saves time and effort trying to resolve a dispute that may be made
moot by the other events. During lawsuits related to the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) after the
Supreme Court of the United States granted
certiorari in
King v. Burwell attorneys in
Halbig v. Burwell requested abeyance of that case as the matter would be resolved in
King and it would be a waste of time and effort to try and resolve it in the
Halbig case.[SUP]
[13][/SUP]
the club ............. was able to avoid an expensive legal battle it did not have the will to pursue at the time.
Does this sound like anyone we know?