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's DaimlerChrysler Appeal Has Been Dismissed
Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 04:37 PM EST

SCO's appeal of the DaimlerChrysler order has been dismissed. The document is not yet available but you can see the docket information here. Update: Here it is [pdf]. If you have any difficulty with the link, go to this page first and plug in the number of the case, 260036. The details of the dismissal will be better understood once we have the document itself, but the two words listed on the docket sheet tell the tale: Administrative/Jurisdiction. They stipulated to a voluntary dismissal, and then tried to appeal it, assuming I guess that they could appeal the earlier order that way. I am beginning to wonder if they missed a deadline on appealing the August order, if stipulating was a mistake. But that seems farfetched.

I recall that SCO very much wanted a stay, so they wouldn't have to appeal, with all the expense that it entails. They asked the judge to stay at least until February. She denied that motion, so maybe they filed an appeal, knowing it would be dismissed, and in the interim maybe there would be a ruling in the IBM case that would inform them whether or not it was worth taking an appeal. That is what jurisdictional can mean, though, that you missed a deadline. The time limit for an appeal of right is jurisdictional. You have to file within the mandated time window. An appeal of right, as opposed to an appeal of leave, means you don't need permission to appeal. Here [PDF] is the checklist they follow in Michigan. And here are the rules.

I spoke with the clerk who handles the administrative end a week or so ago, and she told me this appeal was going nowhere. And it has. That doesn't mean SCO can't try again, but they can't do it this way. They'll have to ask the appeals court if they will grant them permission to appeal, a separate process with no guarantee that the court will say yes. Or, they can file a motion for reconsideration within 21 days of the dismissal and ask a panel of three judges to review the dismissal. If I were just trying to buy some time, I believe I'd file a motion for reconsideration. Even if it got denied again, it would stretch out the time I had to file an appeal of leave. I'll know more on Monday, but I didn't want to wait to let you know some good news.



Here's the docket information:

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

Case Number: 260036-C

SCO GROUP INC V DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP

1 SCO GROUP INC -- PL-AT -- RET -- (26487) ROSENBAUM BARRY M [address, phone]

2 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP -- DF-AE -- RET -- (13335) FEENEY JAMES P [address, phone]

Status: Case Concluded; File Open

12/29/2004 -- 1 -- Claim of Appeal - Civil
Proof Of Service Date: 12/29/2004
Check #: 56347 Fee: $375.00
Receipt#: 2600361
Jurisdictional Checklist: Y Register of Actions: Y
Attorney:26487 - ROSENBAUM BARRY M

12/21/2004 -- 2 -- Order Appealed From
From: OAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Case Number: 2004-056587-CK
Trial Court Judge: 28006 CHABOT RAE LEE
Nature of Case: Dismissal Voluntary

1/10/2005 -- 4 -- Appearance - Appellee
Date: 1/10/2005
For Party: 2 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP DF-AE
Attorney: 13335 - FEENEY JAMES P

1/18/2005 -- 5 -- Submitted On Special Motion Docket
District: C Item #: 11

1/21/2005 -- 6 --Order: Dismissal - Administrative - Jurisdiction

Panel: WCW
Attorney: 26487 - ROSENBAUM BARRY M

Panel: WCW Attorney: 26487 - ROSENBAUM BARRY M


  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 )