decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Schedule for Rule 12 Motions in Novell v. Microsoft Order
Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 08:52 PM EST

Here, thanks to the wonderfully reliable Henrik Grouleff, is the latest in the Novell v. Microsoft antitrust litigation, an Order [PDF] telling Microsoft when to file any Rule 12 motions, and the schedule for Novell to respond and then Microsoft in turn. Apparently, judging by the wording of the order, Microsoft plans on bringing a motion to dismiss. (Update: Here's the stipulation [PDF], which makes it explicit that Microsoft does, indeed, plan a motion to dismiss: "Because Microsoft intends to file a motion to dismiss, the parties hereby stipulate . . . ")

Rule 12 is talking about Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [scroll down], which are the rules in federal courts in civil, as opposed to criminal, actions, or as they put it, "These rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity or in admiralty, with the exceptions stated in Rule 81. They shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action."

Procedural rules aren't the same as laws or statutes, what they call "substantive law", but you'd best follow them in litigation in federal courts as if they were, because they are the rules of the road, the guidelines to follow to get the substantive law applied. So if someone breaches a contract with you, and you qualify to have it heard in federal court, you follow the Rules of Federal Procedure to get your rights upheld.

There are rules as to when you are supposed to answer a summons and complaint, but the parties can stipulate to a different time, as they seem to have here, and then ask the judge to sign the order. And there are certain defenses and objections to be made right away when you first answer, or by motion, or forever hold your peace. When you get sued, that is the first thing your lawyer will look at, how to respond. You can raise a defense and not have it heard until trial, or you can move to have it decided first. But if you fail to raise it in your first pleading, you waive it. It's the kind of thing that gives lawyers heart attacks if they realize too late they've missed something substantial.

There are reasons so many lawyers burn out young. It's a high-stress job, because you are supposed to think of everything right away, and you have to worry about the opposition and about your client turning on you too if you goof, and since we are all humans, not God, mistakes do sometimes occur and somebody overlooks something that turns out to be pivotal. Hence the high blood pressure. It's why I am always very nice to lawyers, because I've seen how hard it is to do their job well.

Here we have a schedule, on stipulation, that if Microsoft wishes to file any Rule 12 motions, they have until December 22 to do so. Microsoft has already said that they think the statute of limitations has run out, so they may want that issue decided now, or they may have other reasons to bring a motion to dismiss. We'll find out on December 22 or shortly thereafter. You can see the list of 1 Rule 12 issues, below.

*****************************************

David B. Tulchin
Steven L. Holley
Joseph J. Reilly
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
[address, phone]

James S. Jardine (A1647)
Mark M. Bettilyon (A4798)
John W. Mackay (A6923)
Mark W. Pugsley (A8253)
RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER
[address, phone, fax]

Thomas W. Burt
Steven J. Aeschbacher (A4527)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION [address, phone]

Robert A. Rosenfeld
Kit A. Pierson
HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & McAULIFFE LLP
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION


NOVELL, INC.,
Plaintiff
-vs-

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER

Civil No. 2:04 CV 1045 TS
Judge: Ted Stewart



Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") shall file any responsive motion under Rule 12, including its motion to dismiss the Complaint, by December 22, 2004.

2. Plaintiff, Novell, Inc. shall file its memorandum in opposition by January 31, 2005.

3. Microsoft shall file its reply memorandum by February 14, 2005.

DATED this 8th day of December, 2004.

BY THE COURT


____[signed]____
United States District Court
Judge Ted Stewart


United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
December 8, 2004

* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *

Re: 2:04-cv-01045

True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:

Mr. Max D Wheeler, Esq.
SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
[address]
EMAIL

R. Bruce Holcomb, Esq.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY LLP
[address]

James S. Jardine, Esq.
RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER
[address]
EMAIL


1 Pleadings

(a) When Presented.

(1) Unless a different time is prescribed in a statute of the United States, a defendant shall serve an answer

(A) within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint, or

(B) if service of the summons has been timely waived on request under Rule 4(d), within 60 days after the date when the request for waiver was sent, or within 90 days after that date if the defendant was addressed outside any judicial district of the United States.

(2) A party served with a pleading stating a cross-claim against that party shall serve an answer thereto within 20 days after being served. The plaintiff shall serve a reply to a counterclaim in the answer within 20 days after service of the answer, or, if a reply is ordered by the court, within 20 days after service of the order, unless the order otherwise directs.

(3)

(A) The United States, an agency of the United States, or an officer or employee of the United States sued in an official capacity, shall serve an answer to the complaint or cross-claim - or a reply to a counterclaim - within 60 days after the United States attorney is served with the pleading asserting the claim.

(B) An officer or employee of the United States sued in an individual capacity for acts or omissions occurring in connection with the performance of duties on behalf of the United States shall serve an answer to the complaint or cross-claim - or a reply to a counterclaim - within 60 days after service on the officer or employee, or service on the United States attorney, whichever is later.

(4) Unless a different time is fixed by court order, the service of a motion permitted under this rule alters the periods of time as follows:

(A) if the court denies the motion or postpones its disposition until the trial on the merits, the responsive pleading shall be served within 10 days after notice of the court's action; or

(B) if the court grants a motion for a more definite statement, the responsive pleading shall be served within 10 days after the service of the more definite statement.

(b) How Presented.

Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, (3) improper venue, (4) insufficiency of process, (5) insufficiency of service of process, (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at the trial any defense in law or fact to that claim for relief. If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

(d) Preliminary Hearings.

The defenses specifically enumerated (1)-(7) in subdivision (b) of this rule, whether made in a pleading or by motion, and the motion for judgment mentioned in subdivision (c) of this rule shall be heard and determined before trial on application of any party, unless the court orders that the hearing and determination thereof be deferred until the trial.

(e) Motion For More Definite Statement.

If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10 days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.

(f) Motion To Strike.

Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.

(g) Consolidation of Defenses in Motion.

A party who makes a motion under this rule may join with it any other motions herein provided for and then available to the party. If a party makes a motion under this rule but omits therefrom any defense or objection then available to the party which this rule permits to be raised by motion, the party shall not thereafter make a motion based on the defense or objection so omitted, except a motion as provided in subdivision (h)(2) hereof on any of the grounds there stated.

(h) Waiver or Preservation of Certain Defense

(1) A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.

(2) A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party indispensable under Rule 19, and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a), or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits.

(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.


  


Schedule for Rule 12 Motions in Novell v. Microsoft Order | 80 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Thread here
Authored by: NastyGuns on Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST
Please put OT links and comments here.

---
NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back, please keep me here." Unknown.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: josmith42 on Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 08:57 PM EST
Because we like 'em.

---
Forty-two: the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"We'll find out on December 22 or shortly thereafter"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 10:10 PM EST
"We'll find out on December 22 or shortly thereafter"

I vote for after.

The holiday time is already in motion... and so, most likely this will happen
after.

Any bets?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time schedule?
Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 10:25 PM EST
I can see that this is a very busy time for lawyers since they have to cover all their bases. Am I right to believe that when the MS response comes it will present a generalised rebuff of Novell's claims and ask for dismissal?

To me these first stages will seem like two people shouting "DID", "NO I DIDN'T"

At what stage do real factual details emerge ie. Who did what when?

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ's comment that Microsoft might be going for a motion to dismiss
Authored by: Hygrocybe on Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 10:39 PM EST
If I was thinking in the same way as Microsoft, and thank goodness my ethics
normally prohibit that, I would be very, very anxious to get a dismissal of any
legal proceeding as quickly as possible. Reason ? Very simple, Microsoft knows
to the nth degree that Groklaw is going to put every move they make under the
microscope and they cannot hope to prevent it. Nope...way to go Microsoft - get
out of that courtroom as quickly as possible before any skeletons move out of
the closet, but personally, I would love to see a few of those skeletons emerge
so I hope the dismissal doesn't get off the ground.

---
Blackbutt, Australia

[ Reply to This | # ]

Note the parties stipulated
Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 10:41 PM EST
There is none (yet) of the silly nonsense we have been seeing in SCO v. IBM or
SCO v. DCC, with attorneys refusing to take or return phone calls, and where law
firms feel compelled to have documents hand-delivered so that they have
documentary evidence of delivery.

This alone tells me the Microsoft attorneys are a much more dangerous bunch than
the folks representing TSG. They pick their fights.

To all and sundry readers: A word to the wise. Please be much more discreet in
using personal invectives about the Microsoft attorneys in this case.

These people can and will find you if you insult them badly enough. Before you
accuse them of incompetence or malpractice, check your wording with your own
attorney, just to make sure you understand the risks you are taking.

It is kind of like rattlesnakes. I do not fear them and neither should you, but
fearless or not, never juggle live rattlesnakes.

---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

You can grab a copy of Doc #7 on Pacer
Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 11:25 PM EST

Clicky

Grab it before it's gone.

---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alleged copyright violation by SCO
Authored by: whoever57 on Thursday, December 09 2004 @ 01:06 AM EST
Check out the newsgroup comp.unix.sco.misc for the story. It looks like SCO's
alleged violations were unintentional (based on another party's claim to own the
relevant copyrights).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Eolas 5,838,906 patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2004 @ 05:00 AM EST
Apparently the Eolas case is coming to court of appeals today, see zdnet.

Eolas is an excellent example of a bad patent. It says a lot about greed and the inadequacy of USPTO. The $521 million award a clear statement about the madness of a broken legal system as far as patents go.

IMO anyone who cares about F/OSS and the dangers of the current patent regime will be rooting for Microsoft on this one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Makes me wonder how SCO gets away with their mess
Authored by: jmcdonald on Thursday, December 09 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST
PJ, I know you said
You can raise a defense and not have it heard until trial, or you can move to have it decided first. But if you fail to raise it in your first pleading, you waive it. It's the kind of thing that gives lawyers heart attacks if they realize too late they've missed something substantial.
... And I certainly believe that is how things are supposed to happen, and *do* happen when all parties behave in a civilized manner. It just makes it all the more amazing that SCO continues to have success pulling some of the things that they do. As plaintiff, they've literally changed the essence of their IBM case several times, and have used this 'shifting foundation' in their pleadings before several other courts, both those where they were plaintiff and defendant.

I will give them points for 'gaming the system'... whatever you may think of them and/or their legal team from a moral/ethical standpoint, you've got to admit that they have harvested considerable non-legal fruits (i.e. marketing/FUD) from their actions; Far more, in fact, than I would've thought the courts would condone.

I mean, how can they... er... oh... sorry... got up on that soapbox there and started getting carried away. Lemme just get down here and go back to reading posts. :-)

J McDonald

Oh, and BTW... thanks for Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some more on Rule 12
Authored by: anesq on Thursday, December 09 2004 @ 11:56 AM EST
To expand a bit on what PJ explained, there is a good reason Rule 12 motions
must generally be brought at the beginning of a case.

Rule 12 lists a multitude of reasons why a case might be dismissed. Failure to
serve the complaint properly, for example, or because the court is not the
correct court. It would be extremely wasteful for someone to raise these
defenses only at the end; and most of them don't matter much (both improper
service and many cases of improper jurisdiction can be waived by a defendant
anyway).

But the biggie in Rule 12 is Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. This is equivalent to saying "so
what?". The defendant is saying "Let's assume everything the
plaintiff says in his complaint is true. It still doesn't matter, because the
facts don't give him a claim for anything."

For example, a plaintiff could file a complaint that says:

"1. The sky is blue.
2. The grass is green.
3. Therefore, the court should require the defendant to pay me $1
billion."

The defendant will file a Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(6) that says
essentially, "I agree for the sake of this motion that the grass is green
and the sky is blue, but there is no law out there that makes that mean I owe
the plaintiff $1 billion."

In the Microsoft case, they are going to argue to the court that even if all the
things Novell says are true, those things don't add up to a violation of a law.

While a 12(b)(6) motion is supposed to be filed before the answer, a failure to
do so is not necessarily fatal. Rule 12 (c) allows basically the same action.
Rule 12(c) motions are rare, probably because if one is inclined to bring a
motion to dismiss, one wants to do it first thing.

Note that a 12(b)(6) motion does nothing about a complaint that contains factual
misstatements; it assumes everything in the complaint is true.

[ Reply to This | # ]

High Stress
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2004 @ 08:12 PM EST
Why does such a high stress court system still exist? If I'm taken to court over
something I didn't do, then accused of it in another language (ie. lawyer speak)
I'm done for because I can't raise an objection to something I don't understand.
Such a system FORCES me to go hire a lawyer. Because I have no choice but to get
one, all lawyers can go unchecked and charge whatever they feel like!

Can someone explain to me why we have to abide by such a sick system??

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • High Stress - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 10 2004 @ 06:34 AM EST
  • High Stress - Authored by: anesq on Friday, December 10 2004 @ 11:10 AM EST
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )