Re: A good example of case law for EDIG -Judge denies motion for entry judgement-54b

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

doni

Rank: President [?]

Points: 76204 [?]

Votes: 138 Score: 3.3 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Re: A good example of case law for EDIG -Judge denies motion for entry judgement-54b

in response to

Re: A good example of case law for EDIG -Judge denies motion for entry judgement-54b

Dolphins1

posted on Oct 23, 2013 03:08PM

the recap is for both Apple and Fuji...similar docs for Fuji

10/21/2013	53	MOTION to Amend/Correct 51 Judgment,,,,, to Certify the Collateral Estoppel Order by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Kevin O'Shea, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3)(O'Shea, Kevin) (aef). (Entered: 10/21/2013)
10/21/2013	54	*MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal* by Apple Inc**.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Kevin O'Shea, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10)(O'Shea, Kevin) (aef). (Entered: 10/21/2013)
10/21/2013	55	Ex Parte MOTION to Shorten Time re Motion to Amend Judgment, Motion to Stay by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(O'Shea, Kevin) Modified on 10/22/2013-QC mailer sent re proposed orders should not be attached (aef). (Entered: 10/21/2013)

=====

and yesterday a modfication to doc 55

10/22/2013

DECLARATION re 55 Ex Parte MOTION to Shorten Time re Motion to Amend Judgment, Motion to Stay re compliance with Local Rule 83.3 by Defendant Apple Inc., Counter Claimant Apple Inc.. (O'Shea, Kevin) (Entered: 10/22/2013)

=====

Basically three issues that the judge needs to weigh...starting with 53 amending the origional considerations of the 51 order....which is the result of a joint motion doc 49 and ordered entry doc 50.

The judge should rule on all three seprately with an order for each....however, they all tie together for the defendants to get what they want.

IMO, Collectivly, it's like taking the case and completely starting over. Lets get in line and follow the newly revised Apple / Fuji approach to the matters.