decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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 Appeals. Yes. Them Again. - Updated
Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:24 PM EDT

SCO has filed its notice of appeal:

07/07/2010 - 881 - NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 876 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, 878 Judgment, 877 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for New Trial, Memorandum Decision filed by SCO Group. Appeals to the USCA for the 10th Circuit. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 1088-1150192. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 07/07/2010)

As you can see, they hope the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will bail them out again:
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Jury Verdict entered in this action on March 30, 2010, the district courtís evidentiary rulings at trial, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 10, 2010, Memorandum Decision and Order Denying SCOís Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative, for a New Trial dated June 10, 2010, and the Final Judgment entered on June 10, 2010.
They're appealing everything, in short, or they'd like a new trial. Because three trials isn't enough when you're not having fun. Speaking of which, I confess. I'm so sick of SCO I could spit.

Update: I couldn't help but recall IBM's question in its reply to SCO's opposition to its motion to convert, a year ago:
A. The Debtors Should Not Be Allowed to Remain in Chapter 11 Indefinitely Just to Pursue Litigation

3. At each stage of these Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors have argued that they need only one more step in the Utah litigation for them to rehabilitate. Their First Extension Motion filed on January 2, 2008 argued for more time to propose a plan until the Utah Court reached judgment "even if the entire judgment is on appeal". (First Extension Motion at ∂ 13.) Their Second Extension Motion filed on May 9, 2008 argued for more time to reflect the results of the May 2, 2008 trial conducted in the Utah litigation. Their Third Extension Motion filed on August 11, 2008 sought an extension until 45 days after entry of final judgment (which this Court did not grant) on the ground that entry of final judgment and commencement of an appeal would facilitate a sale or recapitalization. In arguing their Fourth Extension Motion, they stated in Court they needed only until May 6, 2009 oral argument in the appeal.

4. Now, the Debtors argue that if only they can hold out until a favorable decision in their appeal in the Utah litigation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the "Tenth Circuit"), they will be able to rehabilitate, customers will return, cash will be available, claims will be reduced and investors will be knocking down their door. (Debtors' Response at 10-12.) However, they admit that a favorable ruling would result only in returning the matter to the Utah Court for trial.

5. One is left to wonder, will the Debtors then argue for further deferrals of these Chapter 11 cases, in stages, until the Utah Court tries the case, until the jury returns a verdict, until the Utah Court enters judgment, until the judgment is appealed, until there is oral argument on the appeal and until the Tenth Circuit decides? Is their present prediction that passing the next stage of litigation will make rehabilitation possible any more likely to pan out than their prior four predictions? Will the process start all over for the IBM Case, which is not nearly so advanced as the Novell Case?

At the time, I thought it was hyperbole. Now I think we are going to live this, every step, sort of like the infamous Boies Schiller gardener case. Remember that?
The parties settled their differences in August 1998, but have been suing each other over compliance with the terms of their settlement agreement ever since. Throughout the litigation, Habie and her attorneys have been sanctioned nine times by six different judges for violating at least 13 court orders related to the settlement and discovery orders.

In February, Lewis, who is handling the case pro se, filed a motion asking Judge Crow to disqualify Boies from the case because his firm was bankrolling Habie's five-year court battle against him. Having Boies' firm pay Habie's legal fees gave her an unfair advantage because she had no financial incentive to resolve the dispute quickly, Lewis argued.

"No reasonable person ever would have set aside 10 sanction orders by six different judges and continued the relentless pursuit of the destruction of the Lewises without the assurances and backing of powerful and committed legal counsel such as David Boies," Lewis said in court papers.

That was back in 2003. The case, which began in 1996, was still going on in 2006, although Boies Schiller was ordered off the case. Litigation isn't always rational.

  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 )