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
Judge Wells Named Magistrate Judge for Novell v. Microsoft
Friday, November 19 2004 @ 08:30 PM EST

Utah is amazing. The Novell v. Microsoft case has been assigned to Judge Brooke Wells as Magistrate Judge for all pretrial matters, just as she is for SCO v. IBM. She must think she died and went to heaven. Two of the most intriguing cases on planet Earth and she gets them both. I hope she writes a book someday.

Here is the Order of Reference. My thanks to Henrik Grouleff for noticing and for the transcription.

You will notice that we are up to number 6 on the Pacer list, with the complaint being number 1. What happened in between? Well, Novell filed its Corporate Disclosure Statement, there's an order granting lawyers R. Bruce Holcomb, David L. Engelhart, Milton A. Marquis, and Jeffrey M. Johnson from the Washington, DC firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, be admitted pro hac vice on behalf of Novell, an acceptance of service by Microsoft, and they have until December 7 to answer the complaint (just a notation, no PDF), and another order granting the motion to allow out-of-state lawyer, David L. Englehardt, to represent Novell on this case.

Eagle eyes will notice that Mr. Engelhardt is listed twice. That is because he has amplified the list of courts he is admitted to practice in, including the Tenth Circuit, Utah, and had listed a prior Utah bankruptcy case he handled which was not on the original filing. It will take a while for the PDFs to resolve.

So, we are off and running. Here is the Order of Reference, followed by the Corporate Disclosure Statement, which an anonymous helper transcribed for us. Thank you.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

CENTRAL DISTRICT


NOVELL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

MICROSOFT CORP.,
Defendant.
ORDER OF REFERENCE


Civil No. 2:04-CV-01045 TS




IT IS ORDERED that, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and the rules of this Court, the above entitled case is referred to Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells. The magistrate judge is directed to hear and determine any nondispositive pretrial matters pending before the Court.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

____[signed]____
TED STEWART

United States District Judge

jmr


United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
November 19, 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]


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

Max D. Wheeler (3439)
Stanley J. Preston (4119)
SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
[address, phone, fax]

R. Bruce Holcomb (pro hac vice pending)
Jeffrey M. Johnson (pro hac vice pending)
Milton A. Marquis (pro hac vice pending)
David L. Englehardt (pro hac vice pending)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

----------------------------------

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

NOVELL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_____________________

PLAINTIFF'S RULE 7.1
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE

Judge Ted Stewart
DECK TYPE: Civil
DATE STAMP: 11/12/2004 @ 10:20:40
CASE NUMBER: 2:04CV01045 TS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. Plaintiff Novell, Inc. hereby states that it does not have any parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation holds 10% or more of its stock.

Dated this 12th day of November, 2004

SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU

By: ____[signature]____
Max D. Wheeler
Stanley J. Preston

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY LLP
R. Bruce Holcomb
Jeffrey M. Johnson
Milton A. Marquis
David L. Englehardt

Attorneys for Plaintiff


  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 )