From al Fri Apr 23 20:28:50 2004
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:28:48 -0700
Message-Id: <200404240328.UAA13898@radish.petrofsky.org>
From: Al Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
To: Pamela Jones <pj@groklaw.net>
Subject: Daimler and AutoZone both make dispositive motions
Today in the snail-mail I received a copy of the docket in SCO
v. DaimlerChrysler.
It turns out that last Thursday, in addition to receiving BayStar's
redemption demand, SCO was also served with Daimler's answer to SCO's
complaint and a motion for summary disposition of the case. It
appears that a hearing that could quickly end the case has already
been scheduled, but I don't know for what date it was scheduled.
Below is the docket listing (the last column was cut off on the
printout). I should receive a physical copy of the filings from the
technology-challenged Oakland County clerk in about a week. I've
already sent this to Sorenson.
Also, the latest from PACER, which you may already know, is that
AutoZone filed two motions today, one for a stay and one for a venue
change. The images are not yet up, so I don't even know to what venue
AutoZone wants to take it. Here is the PACER docket listing:
Doc #: 9 Date Filled: 4/23/2004 Status: EOD:
Docket Type: MOTION/DISPOSITIVE Docket Title: TRANSFER Judge:
Caption:
MOTION to transfer venue obo D (m) (DISPO:
Doc #: 10 Date Filled: 4/23/2004 Status: EOD:
Docket Type: MOTION/NON DISPOSITIVE Docket Title: Judge:
Caption:
MOTION to stay or i/t/a for a more definite statemnt obo D (m)(FILED
SEPARATELY DUE TO SIZE) (DISPO:
Do you know what i/t/a means? I couldn't figure it out. Same goes
for "AFM" in the Daimler docket below.
-al
Page: 1 Document Name: untitled
_______________________________________________________________________________
JCC040-2 OAKLAND COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE - F. WILLIAM CADDELL 04/20/0
PAGE NO: 001 OF 001 DOCKET DISPLAY - IMAGE RETRIEVAL 08:27:4
NEXT PAGE: 001 ACT: 03/03/200
DISP:
CASE NO: 2004 056587 CK SCO GROUP INC ATTY: SERLIN,JOEL H
VS
JUDGE: RAE LEE CHABOT DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP TUPPER,STEPHEN L
_ 03/03/2004 COMPLAINT FILED /JURY DEMAND C
_ 03/03/2004 SUMMONS ISSUED SI
_ 03/04/2004 P/S ON SUMMONS FILED SU
_ 03/15/2004 MOTION FILED ADMISS PRO HAC VICE/PLF MT
_ 03/26/2004 APPEARANCE FILED DAIMLERCHRSLER AP
_ 04/15/2004 MOTION FILED SUM DISP/DAIMLERCHRYSLER MT
_ 04/15/2004 NOTICE OF HEARING FILED NO
_ 04/15/2004 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED /AFM/DAIMLERCHYRSLER AT
_ 04/15/2004 MEMORANDUM FILED SUPPT MTN SUM DISP/DAIMLERCHRYSLER MP
LAST OF CASE DATA
ENTER KEY FOR NEXT PAGE, OR ENTER REQUESTED PAGE NO.
ATTYS(Y): FEES(Y):
ALL RECORDS HAVE BEEN DISPLAYED FOR THIS CASE
Date: 4/20/ 4 Time: 08:27:26 AM
From pj@groklaw.net Sat Apr 24 04:01:18 2004
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613)
In-Reply-To: <200404240328.UAA13898@radish.petrofsky.org>
References: <200404240328.UAA13898@radish.petrofsky.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <B1E9D2FC-95DE-11D8-A416-003065E871D4@groklaw.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Pamela Jones <pj@groklaw.net>
Subject: Re: Daimler and AutoZone both make dispositive motions
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:01:10 -0400
To: Al Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613)
On Apr 23, 2004, at 11:28 PM, Al Petrofsky wrote:
> Do you know what i/t/a means? I couldn't figure it out. Same goes
> for "AFM" in the Daimler docket below.
Thanks for this. Have you tried calling the courthouses and asking if
we can have a copy of the filings? I'll pay any expenses associated
with it. If you wish to call, please do. If not, let me know and I
will. If they can Fax, that would be ideal. Then we can transcribe
and share.
i/t/a for a more definite statement means "in the alternative for a
more definite statement". It is telling us that they are saying that
the SCO complaint is so vague they need more information in order to
answer.
AFM probably means affidavit filed with the motion, but I'm only
guessing on what their initializing system is.
>
> -al
>
From al Sat Apr 24 05:26:49 2004
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 05:26:45 -0700
Message-Id: <200404241226.FAA18542@radish.petrofsky.org>
From: Al Petrofsky <al@petrofsky.org>
To: pj@groklaw.net
In-reply-to: <B1E9D2FC-95DE-11D8-A416-003065E871D4@groklaw.net> (message from
Pamela Jones on Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:01:10 -0400)
Subject: Re: Daimler and AutoZone both make dispositive motions
References: <200404240328.UAA13898@radish.petrofsky.org>
<B1E9D2FC-95DE-11D8-A416-003065E871D4@groklaw.net>
> Thanks for this. Have you tried calling the courthouses and asking if
> we can have a copy of the filings? I'll pay any expenses associated
> with it. If you wish to call, please do. If not, let me know and I
> will. If they can Fax, that would be ideal. Then we can transcribe
> and share.
I expect the clerk to mail me copies on Monday, which will probably
get them to me Thursday. As for fax, well, on the 13th they were nice
enough to fax me a docket sheet, but included the note that "Because
this is only a one page docket we have faxed your request but we
normally don't fax request to anyone other than law enforcement
agencies". If you want to pretend you're J. Edgar Hoover, be my
guest! (I don't have the wardrobe for it.)
Another option is getting someone on the ground in Michigan. Here are
the details required for the task, as I related them in an attempt to
goad Larry Greenemeier into doing it:
If your journalistic resources include the ability to get someone in
Pontiac, Michigan to go to 1200 N Telegraph Rd Bldg 12E (department
413, Legal Records, phone number +1 248 858 0582) on Monday between
8:00 and 4:30 and pick up a copy of the April 15 filings so that you
can report on them (and hopefully fax or email a copy to me) then I
will be impressed and much obliged.
And here's a call I made for such a volunteer on the yahoo SCOX board:
If there's someone who can make it to the Oakland County clerk's
office in Pontiac, Michigan at 1200 N Telegraph Rd Bldg 12E
(department 413, Legal Records, phone number +1 248 858 0582) on
Monday between 8:00 and 4:30 and pick up a copy of the April 15
filings, then we'll all be much obliged.
No technical prowess is required for this task: at a minimum, you
just take the documents to a copy/fax retail establishment like
Kinko's (the nearest actual Kinko's is 12 minutes away on University
Dr in Auburn Hills, but someone at the clerk's office can probably
tell you where a nearer equivalent is) and ask for help faxing the
documents (to Frank Sorenson or me, who will handle the
scanning). If you're a starving student, or just suffering from the
munchies, I'll reimburse your costs and throw in a free snickers
bar. Don't miss your chance for glory! (That case number again is
2004-056587-CK.)
This is not the first plea I've made, so you may want to email me at
<al@petrofsky.org> to check whether your effort would be redundant.
(In my youth, I would have just loaded up on Ding Dongs and Coke and
started driving from Berkeley tonight...)
I think I figured out that the "AFM" in "ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED
/AFM" is for "affirmative defenses". It's a little weird that the
abbreviation doesn't include a "D" or any other traces of the
"defenses", but it would make sense here because you have to file your
defenses at the same time as your answer.
I had to look up "definite statement". Here's a link straight to the
definition (which you know, of course, but I thought I'd save you a
few seconds in finding it for the rest of us):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm
(e) Motion For More Definite Statement.
If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is
so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be
required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move
for a more definite statement before interposing a
responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects
complained of and the details desired. If the motion is
granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10
days after notice of the order or within such other time as
the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to
which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems
just.
In case you didn't catch the other news flash: Bob Mims of the Salt
Lake Tribune says:
www.sltrib.com/2004/apr/04232004/business/159867.asp
First on BayStar's list is new top-level management, a directive
that sources privately confirmed called for the resignation or
reassignment of Darl McBride, SCO's outspoken, occasionally
vitriolic president and chief executive.
Yahoo posters are already mourning Darl's passing. We'll all miss the
laughter, but I have hopes that a Scorned Darl will become even more
entertaining.
By the way, Mims has been mentioning in all his SCO articles recently
that the IBM complaint seeks "a minimum of $5 billion and a maximum of
$50 billion". Do you know what that's about? I can find no mention
of $50 billion in the complaint, but it occurs to me that maybe
there's a rule you can get no more than ten times what you ask for.
Is that it? Or has Mims been drinking the SCO kool-aid?
-al
Coryright 2004