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
SCO Loses Motion to Dismiss Red Hat Complaint!
Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:00 PM EDT

SCO's Motion to Dismiss has been denied in Delaware.

The judge has also stayed any further activity in the Red Hat case until after the IBM case in Utah is resolved, unless things get bogged down there. Both sides have to file a letter every 90 days letting her know how things are progressing in the IBM matter. The judge will lift the stay if things don't hop along in a reasonable fashion in Utah. Considering how long it took for this overworked judge to rule on this motion, I don't see the order as a delay at all. The big news is, SCO lost and, sooner or later, they must face the music with respect to Red Hat's charges. There is no escape now. And if they drag their heels in Utah, it can have consequences not only there but also in Delaware. The court records on Pacer tell the story, with documents to follow tomorrow:

4/6/04 34 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying [8-1] motion to Dismiss; case is stayed pending resolution of Utah litigation between SCO and IBM; parties shall each submit a letter every 90 days as to the status of the Utah litigation; if the Utah litigation is not proceeding in an orderly and efficient fashion the court may reconsider the stay ( signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson ) copies to: cnsl. (rd) [Edit date 04/06/04]

4/6/04 -- Per Court's Order of 4/6/04 the following motions are moot:
mooting [30-1] motion To Supplement the Record, mooting [17-1] motion For Enlargment of Time to Respond to Pltf's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents and Things, mooting [15-1] motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (rd)



You can find all the motions that have been mooted on our Legal Docs page, along with the complete record of all the motions and responding documents.

The basic overview is this: Red Hat's Complaint, which is the document SCO tried to dismiss, was answered by SCO with a Motion to Dismiss. Then Red Hat amended its brief.

This was followed by a series of motions, which are the ones the judge has mooted:

For convenience, I am reproducing the Red Hat section from the Legal Docs page here:

Red Hat v SCO
[ back to Top ]


  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 )