|
AutoZone Case Is Being Reassigned to a New Judge |
|
Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 05:31 AM EST
|
The SCO v. AutoZone case will be reassigned to a new judge "to avoid the appearance of impropriety."
Judge David W. Hagen's order, filed March 5, 2004, is here as PDF.
Normally this tends to mean somebody is related to somebody or the judge owns stock or some such thing and rather than have questions raised about bias, they ask to have the case assigned to another judge. I don't know what the impropriety might seem to be in this matter, but it's normal for a judge to decline to hear a case if there could be an appearance of impropriety.
***********************************************
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada
corporation,
Defendant.
_________________________________
CV-S-04-0237-DWH(LRL)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
March 5, 2004
_________________________________
PRESENT: HONORABLE DAVID W. HAGEN, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Deputy Clerk: MICHAEL J. ZADINA Reporter: NONE APPEARING
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): NONE APPEARING
Counsel for Defendant(s): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
To avoid the appearance of impropriety, this action is submitted to Chief Judge
Philip M. Pro for reassignment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: ______[signature]________
Deputy Clerk
|
|
Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 05:57 AM EST |
Post URLs here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: Perens on SCO suits in news.com - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:11 AM EST
- Post URLs here - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:42 AM EST
- Post URLs here - Authored by: BobRoberts on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST
- Post URLs here - Authored by: Turing_Machine on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 10:23 AM EST
- Govorner Doyle - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:37 AM EST
- Post URLs here - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 10:29 AM EST
- OT: New SLTrib Article - Authored by: bakaboy on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 10:38 AM EST
- Bob Mims, Salt Lake Tribune loses plot - IBM leaked license letter - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 11:13 AM EST
- Questar - we want our money ($19K) back if SCO do not prevail against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST
- Does not compute - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:01 PM EST
- Reuter's story on CA/SCOG - Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST
- [OT] Funny writeup at The Register - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 11:48 AM EST
- Code of Conduct - Authored by: rand on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 12:18 PM EST
- OT: The Register SCO parody? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 12:49 PM EST
- CA - SCO breached settlement - SCO we didn't - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST
- Chart showing up and down volume - Authored by: Ted Powell on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:33 PM EST
- Information Week (Bob Evans) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST
- MS-SCO analysis: Questions about the mysterious middle man - Authored by: piskozub on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 02:47 PM EST
- Post URLs here - Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 04:38 PM EST
- IP JUSTICE said the European Parliament has approved... - Authored by: Nick_UK on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST
- OT: Mr. Mike Anderer, contact Newsforge. - Authored by: lnx4me on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 04:58 PM EST
- SCOG card in User Friendly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 07:00 PM EST
- S2/Mike Anderer story - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:35 PM EST
- Post URLs here - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 09:20 PM EST
- Post URLs here - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 11:45 PM EST
- Post URLs here - Authored by: afore on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:14 AM EST
- Post URLs here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:21 AM EST
- OT: Deja Vu... BOFH? - Authored by: penfold on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:18 AM EST
- SCOX hits the floor - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:35 AM EST
- MS money belongs to Novell - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 03:05 AM EST
- GPL valid according to Spanish law - Authored by: ile on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:47 AM EST
- Salt Lake Tribune: Web site: 'Leaked' SCO letter was public court record - Authored by: piskozub on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:38 AM EST
- NewsForge: "Commentary: SCO's Tapestry of Lies" - Authored by: piskozub on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:42 AM EST
- SCO's Tapestry of Lies (commentary by Perens in NewsForge) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:55 AM EST
|
Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 05:59 AM EST |
Who gets to request such reassignments -- is it at the request of the judge to
whom the case was originally assigned, or could one of the parties have
requested it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JeR on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 06:26 AM EST |
The AutoZone Complaint - as text is still not up to par with the official
documents (filed with the Nevada court).
The official documents at TuxRocks show at least superficial
differences with the draft version CNet produced, it appears: instead of the
incorrect "Amended Complaint" the official document correctly states
"Complaint". The official document may also show differences in language,
similar to the changes found using the trace changes function in MS
Word.
PJ, let us know if you'd like transcriptions of these AutoZone
documents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 06:26 AM EST |
Maybe it's being assigned to a new court because of the conflict of interest due
to the fact that the Nevada court uses Linux?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 07:03 AM EST |
Take a look at this one: http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04030809.htm
Does this stregthen or weaken SCO's case ?
And is it fair to assume that AutoZone is a substitute for another bank (e.g.
Deutsche Bank) ?
Jan Christian Anker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: meldroc on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:02 AM EST |
Dunno why the judge recused himself. Having stock in SCO or Autozone, or having
previously worked for one or the other is a good reason. He might have a close
relative that works for one of the parties. In any case, he got out so he
wouldn't get busted for a conflict of interest.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Electric Dragon on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:14 AM EST |
According to the IBM
Timeline, there was a recusal in that suit as well:
26-Mar-03
Court
Memo of recusal signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST |
He lives within a couple miles of an IBM branch office, and was somehow paid off
by IBM to confuse the issue and spread misinformation on a website called
Groklaw... oh wait, that was PJ. Sorry.
:) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 09:47 AM EST |
Unless the case involves Dick Cheney, of course. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST |
Every suit that the SCO Group files diminishes the SCO Group's financial ability
to file another suit. Even if we assume that the suits against AutoZone and
Daimler/Chrysler were filed on contingency, both AutoZone and Daimler/Chrysler
could look for ways to file countersuits if they were so inclined. And defending
against these countersuits would have to be done on an hourly billable basis.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST |
This is class:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/30/36116.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: resst on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 10:14 AM EST |
A quick look at trading this morning shows SCOX shares sinking. Yesterday opened
at $11.85 and closed at $11.28. Today opened at $11.13 and was as low as $11.03.
Of course the trading day is still young and we'll see how things progress
(regress?) through the day.
Do you think the investing public might be catching on? PJ's hard work here on
Groklaw and her resonses to some of the media stories that have appeared
recently have surely helped. Keep up the good work![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Callan.ca on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST |
Anyone in DC (Physical run needed)
A no-action letter was filed by the SEC on Mar 1:
tinyurl.com/3cjmq
This is most likely a finding requested by SCO. The document was filed on paper
and is not available online. One would have to go to the reference room at SEC
headquarters to see it:
www.sec.gov/info/edgar/prrrules.htm
The document control number is 04009720.
---
IANAL, IANAP, IAAC (I am a Canadian)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 11:43 AM EST |
The latest BOFH
episode at The Register is a lovely satire of SCO's nonsense.
It made me
smile. :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RLP on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 11:48 AM EST |
It looks like CA's vehement denial of support for SCO and their making damn sure
everyone knew it may have finally tipped the press that *something* is wrong
here. The stock is dropping fast an NewsForge has an article that's a real
killer on the S2, Microsoft allegations.
http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/08/0457259.shtml?tid=147
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bstadil on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST |
As you know CA was "given" SCO licenses from Canopy as part of the $40M
settlement. This is now being Fudded as CA has bought into the SCO IP
story.
Anyone want to speculate on what that does to the Corporate Veil of
Canopy when IBM et al most likely goes after them.
Is is enough protection
for Canopy to have "bought" the Licenses from SCO and then given it to CA, or is
the Mingling of this enough for holding Canopy liable? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST |
Perhaps this can be SCO's last line of defense -
http://www.nypost.com/n
ews/regionalnews/20274.htm [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST |
Ah, I see someone beat me to posting this ... cracks me up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 01:54 PM EST |
SCO's lawsuits against customers remind me of the Piranha Brothers from Monty
Python:
"They began to operate what they called 'The Operation'...They would select
a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection
money. Four months later they started another operation which the called 'The
Other Operation.' In this racket they selected another victim and threatened not
to beat him up if he didn't pay them. One month later they hit upon 'The Other
Other Operation'. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them,
they would beat him up. This for the Piranha brothers was the turning
point."
Right now SCO is just on "the Operation," beating up those who have
paid them for a license and they haven't quite gotten to the stage of the
"The Other Operation" or "The Other Other Operation." So if
you want to avoid being beaten up by Dinsdale McBride, don't pay the protection
money![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jog on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 02:58 PM EST |
Every tech stock I own is going down, but as long as SCO leads the way i'm
cheering. IBM, DELL, INTEL; will be back SCO won't.
jog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 03:04 PM EST |
The SCOX board on Yahoo is pretty amusing.
Here's a really good
one:
Re: Hello There.
by: hjweth (37/M)
Long-Term Sentiment:
Strong Sell
03/09/04 02:57 pm
Msg: 106700 of 106700
<JUST WONDER.. NOT EVEN ONE PERSON TO SAY BUY THIS STOCK?ONLY THEY
SAID SELL!!!I ASK WHY?WHY THEY ON THIS BROAD?IF THEY DON'T OWN THIS
STOCK?>
People smart enough to operate a keyboard, including the
"Caps Lock" key, are generally smart enough to not buy SCOX.
Posted as
a reply to: Msg 106584 by jimmythanh
See: http://finance.messages.yah
oo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684
464&mid=106700
Sorry... couldn't resist :-/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 03:04 PM EST |
i dont know whether to laugh or cry?
any suggestions :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 03:25 PM EST |
I'm no money specialist but does it seem like scox is dropping fast today to
anyone else? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 03:47 PM EST |
The only thing funnier is watching SCOX drop, 10% so far today.
Anyone taking bets on when they become a penny stock again?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: qcubed on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST |
not so much impropriety as netcraft says that the court itself runs linux.
netcraft[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 08:28 PM EST |
...can't wait to hear that famous Kevin sarcasm in court.
Dude, you are right on the nose...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dins-DARL - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 09:09 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 10:09 PM EST |
"it's normal for a judge to decline to hear a case if there could be an
appearance of impropriety"
Unless your name is Scalia.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09 2004 @ 11:53 PM EST |
Re: DARL'S GOT A GUN........
by: scox_on_the_rox
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Sell
03/09/04 03:50 pm
Msg: 106782 of 106797
Everybody run, the C.E.O.'s got a gun
Everybody run, the C.E.O. has got a gun
Darl's smiling and waving his gun
Picking off crunchies one by one
God, my best friend's on a shooting spree
Stop it, Darl, you're embarrassing me
With apologies to Julie Brown. What? Is my age showing?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:42 AM EST |
down 9.13%
Even the investors aren't impressed anymore.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:20 AM EST |
A satire based on "I Don't Like Mondays" by B. Geldof
The silicon chip inside his head gets switched to overload
And Darl's not singing Kumbayah today
He wants to take the whole thing home.
And Ransom sadly understands it
He always said Darl loves the gold
And he can see
No Reasons
Cos there are
No Reasons
What reasons do you need to know -oh -oh -oh -oh
Tell me why?
I don't like Linux
Tell me why?
I don't like Linux
Tell me why
I don't like... I don't like... I don't like Linux
I want to close--- the whole thing down.
Take it all down.. [piano etc.]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:30 AM EST |
Here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 12 2004 @ 10:15 PM EST |
They are suing their ex customers and not any non-customer linux users because
that may result in a class action law suit , which SCO may find difficult to
handle. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|