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.


To read comments to this article, go here
Novell Granted More Time to Answer
Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:21 PM EST

The parties stipulated to allow Novell a little more time to answer, until March 19. The original is on the paid Pacer, for those with an account. This is regarding their Motion to Dismiss. Here is the Memorandum in Support of that Motion to Dismiss, just to review and to place the order in context.

Novell had granted SCO more time to answer the Motion to Dismiss, so now it's the other way around. SCO answered the Motion to Dismiss with a Memorandum in Opposition, and Novell gets to answer it. It's this reply Memorandum they have been give a little more time to file.

All of this is happening in front of Judge Kimball, the judge also assigned to the IBM case. As you may recall, SCO has also asked that the case be removed from Judge Kimball and federal jurisdiction and sent back to local Utah courts, where SCO originally filed it. They asked that everything in front of Judge Kimball be put on hold until their Motion to Remand is decided. When Novell granted SCO more time to answer their Motion to Dismiss, they agreed to the delay on condition that SCO file no other papers prior to their answer. SCO filed the Motion to Remand the same day as their Answer.

I'm only guessing, but if SCO stipulated to allow Novell only until tomorrow to answer the Motion to Dismiss, perhaps they aren't expecting miracles with respect to their Motion to Remand. If the Motion to Remand were really going to be decided first, there would seem to be no screaming rush for Novell to answer SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion to Dismiss. There are other possible explanations. Novell may not have asked for any more time than tomorrow. Anyway, here is the Order. And now, tomorrow.

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

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice
Matthew I. Kreeger, pro hac vice
[address, phone, fax]

Paul Goldstein, pro hac vice
[address, phone]

ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #372
John P. Mullen, #4097
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address, phone, fax]


Attorneys for Defendant Novell, Inc.

____________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
_____________________________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

vs.

NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

___________________________________

ORDER

Case No. 2:04CV00139

Judge Dale A. Kimball

___________________________________

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Novell, Inc. may have up to and including March 19, 2004 in which to file a reply memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss.

DATED: March 7th, 2004

BY THE COURT:

______signature__________
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court Judge

Approved as to form: ___________signature__________
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
Brent O. Hatch
Mark R. Clements
Attorneys for Defendant The SCO Group, Inc.


United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
March 17, 2004

* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *

Re: 2:04-cv-00139

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

Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]

Mr. Kevin P. McBride, Esq.
[address]

Stephen Neal Zack, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Mr. Thomas R. Karrenberg, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]

Mr. John P. Mullen, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]

Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]

Paul Goldstein, Esq.
[address]

Michael A. Jacobs, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
[address]

Matthew I. Kreeger, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
[address]

Jim F Lundberg, Esq.
NOVELL INC
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
[address]


  View Printable Version


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 )