The parties stipulated to allow Novell a little more time to answer, until March 19. The original is on the paid Pacer, for those with an account. This is regarding their Motion to Dismiss. Here is the Memorandum in Support of that Motion to Dismiss, just to review and to place the order in context. Novell had granted SCO more time to answer the Motion to Dismiss, so now it's the other way around.
SCO answered the Motion to Dismiss with a Memorandum in Opposition, and Novell gets to answer it. It's this reply Memorandum they have been give a little more time to file. All of this is happening in front of Judge Kimball, the judge also assigned to the IBM case. As you may recall, SCO has also asked that the case be removed from Judge Kimball and federal jurisdiction and sent back to local Utah courts, where SCO originally filed it. They asked that everything in front of Judge Kimball be put on hold until their Motion to Remand is decided. When Novell granted SCO more time to answer their Motion to Dismiss, they agreed to the delay on condition that SCO file no other papers prior to their answer. SCO filed the Motion to Remand the same day as their Answer. I'm only guessing, but if SCO stipulated to allow Novell only until tomorrow to answer the Motion to Dismiss, perhaps they aren't expecting miracles with respect to their Motion to Remand. If the Motion to Remand were really going to be decided first, there would seem to be no screaming rush for Novell to answer SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion to Dismiss. There are other possible explanations. Novell may not have asked for any more time than tomorrow. Anyway, here is the Order. And now, tomorrow.
***********************************************
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice
Matthew I. Kreeger, pro hac vice
[address, phone, fax]
Paul Goldstein, pro hac vice
[address, phone]
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #372
John P. Mullen, #4097
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Defendant Novell, Inc.
____________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
_____________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
vs.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
___________________________________
ORDER
Case No. 2:04CV00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball
___________________________________
Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Novell, Inc. may have up to and including March 19, 2004 in which to file a reply memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss.
DATED: March 7th, 2004
BY THE COURT:
______signature__________
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court Judge
Approved as to form:
___________signature__________
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
Brent O. Hatch
Mark R. Clements
Attorneys for Defendant The SCO Group, Inc.
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
March 17, 2004
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *
Re: 2:04-cv-00139
True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
Mr. Kevin P. McBride, Esq.
[address]
Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mr. Thomas R. Karrenberg, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]
Mr. John P. Mullen, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]
Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]
Paul Goldstein, Esq.
[address]
Michael A. Jacobs, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
[address]
Matthew I. Kreeger, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
[address]
Jim F Lundberg, Esq.
NOVELL INC
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
[address]
|
