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
A Pelican Update Makes the Case More Impenetrable - Updated
Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 02:33 PM EDT

Strange. After six months of no activity, here's an entry in the Pelican v. Darl and the Gang suit:

05/20/2010 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald: Oral Argument held on 5/20/2010. (mro) (Entered: 05/24/2010)

Oral argument about what? No indication...Perhaps the motions to dismiss, at last? That was my first thought, but it turns out PACER lists it, if you dig a bit, as a status conference, not a hearing. So I'm a bit puzzled. If it was indeed a status conference, presumably the judge wants to get the case going again, if it's going forward. If so, there should be a schedule or some indication of life on the docket fairly soon or a notice that it's been settled or dropped, or whatever the parties are doing that we don't know about yet. And if it was oral argument, then it was a hearing, and there should be an order eventually.

Update: It was about the motions to dismiss, and it looks like they were all denied, subject to further briefing and perhaps submitting new motions, but from the Order it looks like the judge herself raised subject matter jurisdiction issues that the parties will now file their legal briefs about that, and only if they get past that threshold issue will the motions to dismiss come up again:

05/26/2010 - 48 - ORDER: The respective motions to dismiss filed by defendants Darl McBride (Dkt. No. 26) and Bryan Cave (Dkt. No. 31), as well as plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Talos Defendants' counterclaim (Dkt. No. 38) are each denied without prejudice to being refiled, if appropriate, upon a new notice of motion supported by the existing papers, after the Court's adjudication of the subject matter jurisdiction issues. ORDER denying 26 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 31 Motion to Dismiss; denying 38 Motion to Dismiss. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 5/26/10) Copies Mailed by Chambers.(db) (Entered: 05/26/2010)

Here's how the Order reads:

WHEREAS the Court held oral argument on three motions to dismiss on May 20, 2010; and

WHEREAS at the argument the Court raised threshold issues concerning its subject matter jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS the parties requested, and were afforded, the opportunity to submit briefing on those threshold issues; and

WHEREAS the Court cannot properly decide the pending motions prior to resolving the issue of its subject matter jurisdiction; it is hereby

ORDERED that the respective motions to dismiss filed by defendants Darl McBride (Dkt. No. 26) and Bryan Cave (Dkt. No. 31), as well as plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Talos Defendants' counterclaim (Dkt. No. 38) are each denied without prejudice to being refiled, if appropriate, upon a new notice of motion supported by the existing papers, after the Court's adjudication of the subject matter jurisdiction issues.

Here's an explanation of what subject matter jurisdiction means:
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the requirement that the court have power to hear the specific kind of claim that is brought to that court. While the parties may waive personal jurisdiction and submit to the authority of the court, the parties may not waive subject-matter jurisdiction. In fact, the court may dismiss the case sua sponte — or, on its own — for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In other words, the judge is asking if hers is the right court to handle this case.

Here is where you can find Pelican's and Bryan Cave's motions to dismiss. And Darl's is here. He raised the issue of personal jurisdiction, but that's not the same as subject matter jurisdiction. We'll have to wait until the transcript becomes available, I guess, or until the legal briefs are filed, to figure out what the judge is thinking. But it says she raised issues, not just one.


  


A Pelican Update Makes the Case More Impenetrable - Updated | 172 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 03:00 PM EDT
If any.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 03:01 PM EDT
Please make any links clickable.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NewsPicks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 03:02 PM EDT
Please indicate which article you are referencing
in the title.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All things COMES here, please.
Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 03:03 PM EDT

Thanks for all your hard work.

-jb

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow there is quite a bit outstanding... SCOTUS... SCO "May you live in interesting times"
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 06:23 PM EDT
:-)

Here's hoping for 2 out of 2.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Pelican Update
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 06:54 PM EDT
When I first saw this title I thought it was an update on the Pelicans oiled by
the BP spill not far from here as the Pelican flies.


I don't know what to think of this case except it promises to be exceptionally
entertaining if it moves forward in public.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Swift and predictable reactions to WebM
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 04:49 AM EDT
Swift and predictable reactions to WebM

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Article is unavailable
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 09:29 PM EDT
The July 1, 2009 article (http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009070123514867)
about the Pelican case is not available to me. (I suppose it would be if I
logged in.) It's the first article listed in the Pelican timeline
(http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=PelicanTL).

I realize that some articles are for members only. I'm wondering if this was an
oversight, though. It would be odd that it's listed on the timeline page, but
restricted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Subject Matter Jurisdiction?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, May 27 2010 @ 03:41 PM EDT
Isn't it enough that the parties are citizens of different states?

Darl seems to be a citizen of Utah. I'm not sure of some of the other people.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ 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 )