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
Believe it or not, SCO pops its head up again ~pj
Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:31 PM EDT

It's baaack. The SCO Group would like the US District Court in Utah to finally give it a hearing regarding its wish to go forward in its lawsuit against IBM "and other matters", whatever that last turns out to mean:

03/25/2013 - 1108 - MOTION for Hearing re 1095 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 03/25/2013)

So, here we go again. One more Ring Around the Rosie with SCO.

Here's the text of it, minus the header and signatures, but they do call themselves "The SCO Group", in that the case was brought under that name -- but legally, aren't they calling themselves TSG now? Anyway, here it is:
The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”) respectfully moves for a Status Conference to discuss the Motion to Reopen the Case (Docket No. 1095), which was filed on November 4, 2011, as well as other matters. IBM filed its Opposition Memorandum on November 21, 2011 (Docket No. 1100). SCO filed its Reply Memorandum on December 8, 2011 (Docket No. 1102). Therefore, the briefing on that motion was complete as of December 8, 2011.

After the Motion to Reopen was filed, but before the briefing was completed, Judge Campbell recused herself on November 9, 2011 (Docket 1099). The case was then transferred to Judge Waddoups on November 10, 2011, and the Motion to Reopen the Case (Docket No. 1095) was set for hearing on April 18, 2012, (Docket No. 1101).

On December 9, 2011, after the briefing was complete, Judge Waddoups recused (Docket 1103) and the matter was transferred to Judge Sam who also recused on December 14, 2011 (Docket 1104). The matter was subsequently transferred to Judge Benson, and Judge Benson reset the Motion to Reopen the Case (Docket No. 1095) to April 23, 2012 (Docket No. 1105). On March 31, 2012, the matter was transferred to Judge Nuffer (Docket No. 1106) and on April 2, 2012, all hearings and deadlines were vacated.

SCO filed a Request to Submit for Decision regarding this Motion (Docket No. 1107) on June 14, 2012, seeking a setting to hear SCO’s Motion to Reopen the Case (Docket No. 1095). SCO incorporates here the arguments made in the Request to Submit.

Because SCO’s Motion to Reopen the Case has been pending before the Court since December 8, 2011, and was originally set for a hearing to be held on April 18, 2012, SCO respectfully requests that the Court schedule as soon as practicable a status conference and/or hearing on SCO’s Motion to Reopen the Case (Docket No. 1095).


  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 )