To celebrate our three-peat as Marshall-Harrison County Literacy Council spelling bee champs this afternoon on behalf of the Marshall Chamber of Commerce, let’s look at an order involving a plaintiff whose name I can’t spell.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court found the asserted claims invalid and not infringed yesterday evening. Spectators found the new courtroom benches to have excellent lumbar support.
Following a Markman hearing and supplemental briefing, the Court issued this opinion finding four of the asserted claims indefinite.
Neither judge believed that the plaintiff showed good cause supporting a mandatory extension of the service deadline – but reserved judgment on whether a discretionary extension was warranted.
It may lack the drama of the Packard sawmill burning down on Twin Peaks, but if an order applying settlement credits and awarding court costs doesn’t get your heart racing, why do you even have a bar card anyway?
This is a Fair Labor Standards Act case, in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant should have paid managers overtime compensation.
Orders on Rule 12(b)(5) motions are not common, which makes this one useful to see when challenged service on a foreign corp was held
After reviewing the Defendant’s FRCP 59(e) motion, the Court agreed that its Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law should be amended, but that the change didn’t disturb the result of the final judgment.
In this procedurally complex case, the defendant asked for a stay pending two related cases, and got it as to one.
The issue here was whether the convenience factors favored a transfer, even in spite of the defendant’s delaying asserting the issue until the court congestion factor weighed heavily against transfer.