|
|
| Novell v. Microsoft Gets Moved to Maryland for Pretrial Issues |
 |
|
Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:15 PM EDT
|
The Novell v. Microsoft litigation is moving to Maryland for pretrial proceedings. Here's the Transfer Order [PDF]. I'm guessing Novell isn't too thrilled about this. Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells is off the case now. Here's the docket information:4/25/05 26 -- Transfer Order, transferring case to the District of
Maryland in re: Microsoft Corp. Windows Operating Systems
Antitrust Litigation MDL no. 1332 signed by Wm Terrell
Hodges, Chairman, (jmr) [Entry date 04/29/05]
4/25/05 -- MDL Case transferred to District of Maryland. MDL Dkt No.
1332 (jmr) [Entry date 04/29/05]
4/29/05 - 27 -- Notice of transmittal of case transferred to District of
Maryland MDL no. 1332 per order no. 26. (jmr)
[Entry date 04/29/05]
4/29/05 -- CASE NO LONGER REFERRED TO Judge Brooke C. Wells (jmr)
[Entry date 04/29/05]
4/29/05 -- Case closed per order no. 26. (jmr) [Entry date 04/29/05]
Here's the text of the transfer order.
****************************
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
APR 18 2005
FILED CLERK'S OFFICE
DOCKET NO. 1332
[unclear]JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE MICROSOFT CORP. WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., D. Utah, C.A. No. 2:04-1045 [handwritten: JFM-05-1087]
BEFORE WM. TERRELL HODGES, CHAIRMAN, JOHN F. KEENAN, D.
LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ*, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR.,
KATHRYN H. VRATIL AND DAVID R. HANSEN, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel is a motion brought, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), by plaintiff in a District of Utah action ( Novell). Plaintiff asks the Panel to vacate a Panel order conditionally transferring Novell to the District of Maryland for inclusion in the centralized pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket before Judge J. Frederick Motz. Defendant Microsoft Corp. supports transfer of the action.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Novell involves common questions of fact with actions in this litigation previously transferred to the District of Maryland, and that transfer of Novell to that district for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Panel is persuaded that transfer is appropriate for reasons expressed by the Panel in its original order directing centralization in this docket. The Panel held that the District of Maryland was a proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving allegations pertaining to Microsoft's alleged anticompetitive conduct in a purported market for personal computer operating systems. See In re Microsoft Corp. Windows Operating Systems Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1332, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5559 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 25, 2000).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, this action is transferred to the District of Maryland and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.
FOR THE PANEL:
___[signature]___
Wm. Terrell Hodges
Chairman
[Clerk attestation and signature]
* Judge Motz took no part in the decision of this matter.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jaja on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
| Why would Novell be upset about this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
| as normal ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
| as normal ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MOG pushing 'indemnification' hot button' - cites Gartner warnings - Authored by: dmarker on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- Installation pain - Authored by: freeio on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:25 PM EDT
- a cake-walk? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- Installation pain - Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 09:24 PM EDT
- Installation pain - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 10:16 PM EDT
- Installation pain - Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 10:33 PM EDT
- i'm not an ms fan, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 12:55 AM EDT
- Installing software packages... - Authored by: bradley13 on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 01:24 AM EDT
- Installation pain - Authored by: dbc on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 01:26 AM EDT
- Step By Step - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 06:50 AM EDT
- Installation not for users - Authored by: Mark Grosskopf on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- Installation pain - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- Gates may find opening the H1-B gates tough - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 09:19 PM EDT
- A "Wow!" statement... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 10:11 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
Well, we probably should check back every couple of years to see if anything has
happened.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
I didn't see anything about this in the Novell-MS area, so please forgive me if
I should know about this already, but what prompted this transfer? What's in
Maryland? If Novell is a Utah corporation, and Microsoft is a Washington
corporation, what does Maryland have to do with anything?
Is this for pre-trial only (is that only discovery, or other things also?), or
for the whole thing?
I also wonder how moving this to Maryland will "serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses" when neither party is located in Maryland.
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: heretic on Saturday, April 30 2005 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
From the Maryland Court:
MDL's or multidistrict litigation are cases
involving one or more common questions of fact which have been transferred from
different districts by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation to a
single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28
U.S.C. ยง 1407.
More information on multidistrict litigation can be
obtained from the here
The
MS MDL is handled by Honorable J. Frederick Motz, see here
heretic
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 01:48 AM EDT |
HELP!!!
I've been following SCO v.IBM for two years here on Groklaw. I thought knew what
was going on.
I've watched as Groklaw analyzed all relevant documents from SCO v. IBM, RedHat
v. SCO, SCO v. Autozone, SCO v. Novell, and SCO v. Diamler-Crysler.
What the heck is Novell v. Microsoft? Where are the relevant docments? what is
this case about? How does it relate to SCO v. IBM?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
And how does this improve efficiency? Lets move the thing, bring a new judge up
to date (which will take delays, or excuses for delays). I don't get it...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
Does this mean that any and all future lawsuits concerning potential or alleged
IP violations (copyright, patent, & other forms of theft) against Microsoft
will be redirected to this court?
Maryland has a reputation of being the place where the investment bankers prefer
civil lawsuits to be tried because even when a corporation losses it is rarely
more than a slap on the wrist.
These same people will do everything in their power to prevent a case from being
tried in southern Illinois, for just the opposite reason in Maryland.
Just a perception, not necessairly based on facts just high profile cases. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
Judge Frederick Motz is the judge who unsealed the court documents revealing
that Microsoft was destroying email evidence. See section 11. A. in my SEC
complaint.
Steve Stites'
letter to the SEC
--------------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, May 01 2005 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells is a joke so maybe this is not all
bad?
---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Benanov on Monday, May 02 2005 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
Where is this physically located? I live in Frederick, MD (West of Balitmore,
North of DC) and if it's close by, I could pick up documents.
---
That popping sound you hear is just a paradigm shifting without a clutch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
