View Single Post
Old 28 December 2019, 18:31   #839
Registered User
SpeedGeek's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin USA
Age: 56
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by number6 View Post
I gather you've been following this.
First filing after the default judgment was filed by the clerk:
"MOTION for Leave to File Over-length Motions and Briefs re: Motion for Entry of Default Judgment"
This was granted yesterday by the judge, with additional information regarding length of reply.
I gather this process will be followed by an actual ruling from the court.

item 22

All of this seems to fly in the face of the court (Judge Martinez) speaking about expectations of settlement by end of year, no?


ORDER granting Plaintiffs'21 Motion for Leave to File Over-Length Motion. Plaintiffs may file a motion for entry of default judgment of no more than 11 total pages. Defendant's response brief (if any) shall be no more than 11 total pages. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)

Yes, I have been following this. But I don't see it as flying in the face of the court. The trademark dispute was always part of the contract dispute. However, as you previously noted, Judge Martinez refused to allow it because the parties failed to act with "Due Diligence" so it had to be filed as a separate case.

Since, the trademark case has now been decided by Default, any "Settlement" of the contract case (if there actually is one) will simply incorporate the results of the trademark case.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf C-A_Acquistion_Leave_Over_Length_Motion.pdf (17.8 KB, 23 views)

Last edited by SpeedGeek; 30 December 2019 at 16:37.
SpeedGeek is offline  
Page generated in 0.05273 seconds with 12 queries