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.
Some time back I posted about this very interesting gym locker dispute. Following
At 69 pages, this is a lengthy venue ruling, but covers some important ground including the “regular and established place of business” requirement and the convenience factors – the latter in some detail.
Defendant asked the Court to strike Plaintiff’s disclosures or extend deadlines as a result of Plaintiff’s alleged failure to timely produce damages information. The Court saw this as an issue of whether under its procedures relevant documents must be requested.
The Court denied the parties’ previous request for a stay, but on reconsideration determined that a stay was appropriate, and explained why.
This order resolves a number of summary judgment motions on breach of contract claims arising out of an employment relationship. The facts are bespoke, so I won’t go through them, but the analysis may be of interest if you’re itching to have a court resolve contract issues.
It’s a short order, but if I had an order that said “[i]n its well-researched and written motion” about my motion, I’d be puffed up like a toad. Well, at least until I got to the part that it was denied anyway.
Courts costs isn’t an area you can develop much expertise in unless you go to trial a lot. Otherwise, the subject matter knowledge evaporates by the next time you need it, and you have to relearn it. That’s why orders like the attached are helpful, because they provide a current summary of the relevant caselaw, including the evergreen issue of which deposition-related costs are taxable.
This is a Markman ruling that concluded that a claim term was indefinite. The Court set forth the current standards for such an argument before concluding that the term had been shown by clear and convincing evidence to be indefinite in light of the court’s other constructions. The opinion also addresses several times the argument that a claim term should be given its plain meaning, and provides a good set of examples for when this argument will be accepted.