Company Seven.
  C-7 Home Page C-7 News Consignment Library Products & Services Product Lines Order Search


As read on the Quarterly Report from Meade Instruments posted on on

"On May 17, 2002, two individuals filed a complaint for unfair business practices against the Company in their capacity as consumers, within the meaning of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and in their capacity as private attorneys general suing to enforce the provisions of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The complaint, which has not been formally served on the Company but was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura (Case No. CIV211644), claims that certain of the Company's packaging and marketing materials are misleading. The plaintiffs' seek, among other remedies, an order requiring the Company to offer various remedies to past consumers of the Company's products. While the Company believes the complaint is without merit, due to the uncertainties of litigation, the Company is unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome in this case."

Going to the website of the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura and reading the public case record indicates the case is listed as "JAMES SWANSON VS MEADE INSTRUMENT CORPORATION". The history of the case is outlined:

  • 5/17/02 (S) Complaint filed
  • 5/17/02 Track assignment: Standard
  • 5/17/02 Case Information Sheet filed: Type of trial requested: JURY.
    Estimated time of trial: 3 DAYS. Mediation eligible: NO
  • 5/17/02 Declaration re: Court Assignment filed
  • 5/17/02 Summons Issued; 30 day
  • 7/2/02 Proof of Service (Sub-service) of Summons and COMPLAINT of
    PARAY, RECEPTIONIST. Mailing date of 06/28/02."

As of this date there are not yet any pending hearings scheduled.

Further reading shows the plaintiffs include: BRIAN DEPPEN

Their attorney is: WILLIAM JOHN WEILBACHER, partner of Weilbacher and Chatenever.
Weilbacher and Chatenever can be contacted at: (805) 650-6640

Company Seven believes it will be very interesting for those interested in amateur astronomy to follow and study this case. It is unfortunate that Meade Instruments Corp. has to be the victim of at least the embarrassment, if not suffer the loss of, or a costly settlement of a suit like this since we have observed so many other manufacturers (and maybe some magazines who cower "we do not edit our advertiser's content") over our years in the hobby who we believe were as much if not more deserving of such attention.


Contents Copyright 1994-2002 Company Seven - All Rights Reserved