[News] 4 New Filings in the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc Case | ANN.lu |
Posted on 21-Dec-2003 02:32 GMT by samface | 250 comments View flat View list |
There are 4 new filings in the civil docket for the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc case, including:
RESPONSE by Defendant Amiga Inc. (Entered: 12/19/2003)
AMENDED REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs (Entered: 12/16/2003)
DECLARATION of Bill Buck filed by Plaintiff Thendic Electronics Components (Entered: 12/16/2003)
ORDER by Judge Robert S Lasnik granting in part 31 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Entered: 12/19/2003)
A highlight from the latest ruling by Judge Lasnik:
Defendant's counterclaim is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute. However, the Court declines to rule on plaintiffs' request for specific performance at this time. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is renoted for 1/16/2004. Plaintiffs shall have until Monday, January 12, 2004 to submit a memorandum in response to the issues and concerns raised in this Order. Defendant, if and only if it retains counsel in the interim, may file a reply memorandum no later than 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 2004. No extensions shall be given.
Visit the Civil Docket for the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc case here.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
4 New Filings in the Thendic Electronics, et al v. Amiga Inc Case : Comment 52 of 250 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 21-Dec-2003 21:20 GMT | In reply to Comment 45 (bbrv): I did. See comment 33.
Unfortunately, you still had a problem with it because it didn't support _your_ position of how the judgement should go. Note to everyone reading this: Bill Buck's answers are ONE side of the story only, and only touch on factors which support his position. He is NOT imforming of any factors which may adversely affect the judgement from his point of view. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, but everyone should be aware of it when judging for themselves.
Matt failed the follow the point I was making, whereas you dismissed it and tried to bury the issues raised, issues which were concerned with factual and objective matters and not speculation and innuendo as you claim.
Quite honestly Bill, if you think a summary judgement will automatically entitle you to the moral high ground, you'd better think again. That's why I hope the judge decides on evidence alone, no matter which way his judgment goes. If he decides in your favour on that basis alone, then and only then can you claim the laurels for being "on the side of right". |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|