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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
SCO files motion for judgment on pleadings on Novell's money claims or for amendment of scope of trial
Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:20 AM EST

SCO has filed a sealed motion in the Utah case, asking, believe it or not, for "judgment on the pleadings on Novell's claims for money or for declaratory relief" or, in the alternative, "for amendment of the scope of the trial". I can't wait to see the redacted version.

Judgment on the pleadings. In Utah. Like that will happen. They never run out of panache or crazy ideas to try, do they?

In the bankruptcy, SCO has filed an amended Schedule F [PDF]. Schedule F is the schedule of creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims. Here's the original version of Schedule F [PDF], if you want to compare them, and I hope you do. Schedule F starts on page 7, and the last page of Schedule F is the first page of this continuation [PDF]. All the schedules are found here.

SCO's first Schedule F listed 10 creditors, Alia Shahbaz (litigation matter), India Income Tax Department (litigation matter), Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, IBM (litigation matter), Novell (litigation matter), Red Hat (litigation), SCO Operations (intercompany payable), and Sunray Computers Pvt. Ltd. (litigation matter).

The amended Schedule F lists four pages of creditors, but none of the above. So, where did they go? I think it means SCO filled out Schedule F inappropriately originally and have now fixed it. You'll notice Darl McBride is listed, but there is a line through it, which I take to mean that he got his.

The total of unsecured nonpriority claims is listed as $3,605,696.76. The total for unsecured priority claims (Schedule E) is $484,514.94. Personal property (Schedule B) is listed at $9,549,519.07, but I think that is only if you include the value of the copyrights that the Utah court has ruled SCO doesn't own, all of which are listed on the original Schedule B. Since only Schedule F is amended, I'd say they have valued their personal property optimistically, to put it kindly, or questionably, not to put too fine a point on it, since the list in no way indicates the Utah ruling's impact on the list.

Amending the scope of trial means what? I don't know for sure since it's sealed, but I think usually it means you want to be able to talk about things that are not currently permitted. If you followed the SCO v. IBM case, you are familiar with the concept, since SCO tried, albeit unsuccessfully, in another way to do that very thing. Even in the Novell case, it tried something similar in its proposed jury instructions.

Here are the filings in SCO v. Novell:

502 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON NOVELLS CLAIMS FOR MONEY OR CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; OR FOR AMENDMENT OF THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group (Hatch, Brent)

503 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SCOS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON NOVELLS CLAIMS FOR MONEY OR CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; OR FOR AMENDMENT OF THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group (Hatch, Brent)

504 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of SCO's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief, and Memorandum in Support Thereof filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group (Corrected Filing) (Hatch, Brent)

505 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Sealed Motion
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** SEALED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Document has not been scanned but will be retained in the sealed room of the clerk's office.) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(jwt) Modified on 3/7/2008 (jwt).

506 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Memorandum in Support of [505]SEALED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Document has not been scanned but will be retained in the sealed room of the clerk's office.) (jwt)

Here are all the filings in the bankruptcy:

386 - Filed & Entered: 03/06/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation (Fifth) for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses as Accountants to the Debtors for the Period from February 2, 2008 through March 3, 2008 Filed by Tanner LC. Objections due by 3/26/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)

387 - Filed & Entered: 03/06/2008
Transfer/Assignment of Claim
Docket Text: Transfer/Assignment of Claim. Transfer Agreement 3001 (e) 1 Transferor: CCI NETWORK SERVICES To REVENUE MANAGEMENT. Filed by Revenue Management. (Kane, Dana)

388 Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Certificate of No Objection
Docket Text: Certificate of No Objection (No Order Required) Regarding Third Interim Application of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Special Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession, for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period December 1, 2007 Through December 31, 2007 and Notice of Intent to Setoff Certain Pre-Petition Fees and Expenses Against Pre-Petition Retainer Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. (Schnabel, Eric)

389 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service of Certificate of No Objection (No Order Required) Regarding Third Interim Application of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Special Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession, for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period December 1, 2007 Through December 31, 2007 and Notice of Intent to Setoff Certain Pre-Petition Fees and Expenses Against Pre-Petition Retainer Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. (Schnabel, Eric)

390 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Schedules/Statements
Docket Text: Schedules/Statements filed: Sch F,. (AMENDED Schedule F) of SCO Operations, Inc. [Related Docket No. 130] Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James)

391 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Affidavit/Declaration of Service
Docket Text: Affidavit/Declaration of Service (related document(s)[360] ) Filed by Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC. (Selzer, Sandra)


  


SCO files motion for judgment on pleadings on Novell's money claims or for amendment of scope of trial | 180 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here, Please
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:36 AM EST
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here, Please
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:37 AM EST
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

NewsPick Discussions Here
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:38 AM EST
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Referred to Wells
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:51 AM EST

Hmm. Was SCO hoping to get a different magistrate? Still
judge shopping, are they?



[ Reply to This | # ]

  • No - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 04:58 PM EST
Appeal Groundworks underway?
Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 08:07 AM EST
IANAL etc but if they file this motion and it is rejected would this not be a
vital plank in any appeal that might be lodged post trial?
They could possibly make the case that their motion to the Bench to reconsider
the verdict (of last Aug possibly) was dismissed out of hand had somehow
prejudiced their legal case.

I do permit myself a wry smile from time to time over this sort of legal
machinations emanating from the SCO side. Remember, it was SCO who sued in the
first place. Now they are clearly fighting for breath and I like to think going
under for the third time...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slip up?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 08:07 AM EST
If SCO listed as an asset the copyrights that have been ruled to be Novells does
that give Novell a jump up the debtor queue.

"Look they have our property"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Schedule F for SCO Operations, not SCO Group
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 08:31 AM EST
Which is why IBM, Novell, etc. do not appear...

They're trying to separate everything so that SCO Operations retains all of
their products, IP, hardware, support obligations, etc., but does not have
anything to do with the various lawsuits. They've been doing that for a while.

If you want to compare schedule F to amended schedule F, you need to find the
original SCO Operations schedule F, otherwise the comparison is (bad) apples to
oranges.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judgment on Pleadings?
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 09:05 AM EST
Is "judgment on pleadings" a legal term, or just what SCO put in their
title? If it's a legal term, what does it mean? What are the implications?

---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves

[ Reply to This | # ]

Amici Claim is checked marked "Disputed"
Authored by: stats_for_all on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 10:17 AM EST
The Amici LLC claim in the amount $500,650.75 (legal document archives) is checkmarked "Disputed" in the new Schedule F, this is different than the first filing.

Other 'disputed' claims refer to legal matters such as the IPO litigation and are additionally "contingent" and "unliquidated".

It is important to note that Kevin McBride, Darl's brother recieved payments of:

2007 -- $415,000
2006 -- $562,000
2005 -- $323,000
"for document management, outsourced technical and litigation assistance, and travel expenses." Source: SCO 10-K filing page 81. The most recent SCO operations monthly report details an October $30,750 billing for Kevin McBride. and a $20,000 billing for November, both paid as professional fees.

Amici, LLC was controversial because at one time it was a Boies family holding, since sold to Xerox. The undisclosed family relationship with the caused Boies' firm some problems.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judgment on the pleadings
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 03:52 PM EST
As far as I can gather "judgment on the pleadings" is a form of
summary
judgment. They must be asserting that no issue of material fact exists and that

they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. I guess this means that they

think Novell has no claim to ANY of the Sun/Microsoft licenses, since any other

amount would be a stab in the dark, or an admision that it is ALL Novell's.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keeping the MSOOXML headlines visible.....
Authored by: tce on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 12:26 AM EST
Hi PJ, MathFox, all,

I wonder if it would be possible to "tag" articles by topic and have a
front page that showed the headlines of articles for that topic.

For example, groklaw has done a large number of OOXML articles that, as far as I
know, are not presented in a way that new readers will find them.

If I do an article search on OOXML, I get a very important list of articles
covering the whole time line of ugly behavior.

Two proposals:
Add to the bottom of the ODF/MSOOXML the resulting list of groklaw articles from
a search for the keyword ooxml (easy?) or the tag ooxml (more work)


Add to the groklaw front page, right where it says "Headlines" a link
that says "OOXML Headlines" for a "front page" that includes
just the last bunch of OOXML headlines.


Oh, Oh, Oh...and Lots of good OOXML specific News Picks... what about having the
ODF/OOXML headlines list be a two column list, left side for article search
results, right side for News Picks search results...

Thanks,
tce






[ Reply to This | # ]

Why sealed?
Authored by: sk43 on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 10:54 PM EDT
Even the motion itself is sealed, which is highly unusual, even for SCO. The
"pleadings" are presumably SCO's 2nd amended complaint and Novell's
answers and counterclaims (plus exhibits, if any), both of which are public. I
don't know of any sealed exhibits. The only other documents allowed in are
supposed to be ones that are public as well. 'Tis all a mystery.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Why sealed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 10 2008 @ 10:53 AM EDT
  • Why sealed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 10 2008 @ 01:00 PM EDT
SCO files motion for judgment on pleadings on Novell's money claims or for amendment of scope of
Authored by: Laomedon on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 08:06 PM EDT
redacted version now available, Docket 507.
Arguments:

1) If the SCOsource agreements were executed without authority and Novell has not approved them, as Novell asserts, then Novell is not entitled to any "SVRX Royalties".

2) In the alternative, if Novell has approved the SCOsource Agreements, then its claim for declaratory relief is moot under that version of facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )