|
SCO's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings |
|
Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:55 PM EST
|
Here's the Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings, thanks to Henrik Grouleff, who is blazingly fast.
*********************************************************
DOC-102
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
David K. Markarian
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER L.L.P
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, a New York corporation,
Defendant.
|
PLAINTIFF SCO'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PLEADINGS
Case No. 03-CV-0294
Hon: Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells
|
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rules 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules, files this Memorandum of Law In Support of its Motion for Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint and Amended Affirmative Defenses to IBM's Amended Counterclaim, and in support states:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides a liberal standard by which federal courts are to judge the propriety of allowing a party to amend its complaint. Where the party moves the court for leave to do so, the rule provides "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R.Civ. Pro. 15(a); see also, Leaseamerica Corp. v. Eckel, 710 F.2d 1470, 1473 (10th Cir. 1983). In the landmark case of Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court stated "this mandate is to be heeded." 371 U.S. 178, 182 (l962); (quoted in Triplett v. Leflore County, OK, 712 F.2d 444 (10th Cir. 1983)). The Foman Court further held, "[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits." 371 U.S. at 182.
The Tenth Circuit has developed a list of factors by which courts should be guided in determining whether a party should be permitted to amend its complaint. Among these are the timeliness of the amendment, whether a dilatory or bad-faith motivation exists, whether a party had previous opportunities to state its claim but failed to do so, whether the party knew of the facts comprising the amendment but failed to include them in the original complaint, and resulting prejudice to the opposing party. Las Vegas lce and Cold Storage Co. v. Far West Bank, 893 F.2d 1182, 1185 (10th Cir. 1990); Triplett, 712 F.2d at 446. SCO's effort to amend its pleading is not motivated by any of these concerns.
Courts apply Rule 15(a)'s liberal standard and permit parties to amend their complaints in circumstances such as the instant case. See Leaseamerica Corp., 710 F.2d at (finding leave to amend properly granted where no prejudice to opposing party); Triplett, 712 F.2d at 446 (finding lower court erred in refusing party leave to amend complaint where motion to amend not untimely and no prejudice to opposing party shown). Therefore, under Rule 15's liberal standard, this Court should permit the Plaintiff to amend its complaint as detailed in the motion accompanying this memorandum of law.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) also provides a liberal standard by which federal courts are to judge the propriety of allowing a party to file amended affirmative defenses. Where the party moves the court for leave to do so, the rule provides "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a), and as noted above, "this mandate is to be heeded." Foman, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (l962). The Foman Court held that courts should permit a party to amend its pleadings
[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason - such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. - the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'
Id. None of the above impediments is present in the instant situation.
Courts within the Tenth Circuit adhere to the liberal standard mandated by Rule 15(a) and permit parties to amend responsive pleadings with the addition of affirmative defenses. See Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222, 1230 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing Rule 15(a) and finding Court held no abuse of discretion in permitting party to add affirmative defense of claim-splitting); Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Com., 903 F.2d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 1990) (finding that lower court may permit party to add affirmative defense of fraud if "justice so requires"). This is particularly true when the amendments are filed on or before the deadline for filing amended pleadings.
Accordingly, under Rule 15's liberal standard, this Court should permit the Plaintiff to amend and add the affirmative defenses as specified in the motion accompanying this memorandum of law. The proposed amended complaint serves to streamline the pleadings and adds claims that have arisen since the filing of the case. The proposed amendments to SCO's proposed Amended and Additional Affirmative Defenses reflect the continuing investigation into the allegations and issues raised by IBM in its eleven count counterclaim, including four separate claims of patent infringement, and serve to better frame the issues for this Court's determination. Moreover, the revisions address the concerns raised in IBM's Motion to Strike portions of SCO's Affirmative Defenses, thereby rendering moot IBM's Motion to Strike.
DATED this 4th day of February, 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, L.L.P.
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
By: [signature]
Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterclaim defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by mail on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on the 4th day of February 2004, by U.S. Mail to:
David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
and HAND-DELIVERED to:
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
[signature]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:08 PM EST |
If anyone has the time to find the cases cited, that would be wonderful.
On Google, try keyword "xyz v xyz" first and if it fails, try just one
of the
parties' name. Usually, it shows up that way, even if the first fails. It
isn't logical, but that is my experience.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Scriptwriter on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:13 PM EST |
"Las Vegas Iee and Cold Storage" should undoubtedly be "Las Vegas
Ice and Cold Storage".
---
They'll take my copy of Linux when they pry it out of my cold, dead flippers.
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:50 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:17 PM EST |
The Foman Court held that courts should permit a party to amend its
pleadings
[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason -
such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,
futility of amendment, etc. - the leave sought should, as the rules require,
be 'freely given.'
Id. None of the above impediments is
present in the instant situation.
- Undue delay... nope,
none of that in this case.
- Bad faith... nope, none of that in this
case.
- Dilatory motive... nope, none of that in this
case
- Repeated failure to cure deficiencies... nope...
- Futility
of the amendment... nope...
Since none of the above items has
ever been observed in SCO's behavior in this case (and certainly not
RIGHT THIS INSTANT), the only remaining item is, of course, the possibility of
"undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment".
So what does "prejudice" mean here? Anyone?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:39 PM EST |
IANAL
I posted this in the last discussion, but you probably missed it,
as it was near the end
The proposed amendments to SCO's proposed
Amended and Additional Affirmative Defenses reflect the continuing investigation
into the allegations and issues raised by IBM in its eleven count
counterclaim, including four separate claims of patent infringement, and
serve to better frame the issues for this Court's determination.
There were 11 counts in IBM's original
counterclaim.
There are now 13 counts in IBM's amended
counterclaim.
The reference to 11 counts comes up in this memo, and in
SCO's motion too. So my guess is it appears in the exhibits and proposed amended
pleadings, too.
In short, they are responding to IBM's original
counterclaim, and NOT, IBM's current amended
counterclaim.
As with SCO's previous errors, it suggests SCO is not
even bothering to really read IBM's filings properly. Some of SCO's other errors
of this type, include:
1. Not reading the addendum to IBM's first
motion to compel discovery. SCO admitted this error, when they filed a
substitute motion to enlarge time to respond to IBM's motion.
2. United
States Patent and Trademark Office, instead of Copyright Office in SCO's
affirmative defenses.
3. SCO not realizing that IBM had already
responded and commented on SCO's supplemental responses (I think this is SCO's
opposition brief to IBM's 1st or 2nd motion to compel discovery), IBM pointed
this out.
4. Seemingly not really reading what IBM said about Rule 9(b)
in their initial brief on striking SCO's affirmative defenses. Check SCO's reply
brief, it's almost like IBM's memo didn't exist.
Anyway, regardless
of what SCO pleads, IBM have 13, not 11 counterclaims. If SCO only wants to
offer affirmative defenses to 11 of the 13, I'm happy with that :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: the_flatlander on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:58 PM EST |
So, ah, not bein' a lawyer or nothin' I was wondering...
If, ah, say the SCOundrels were permitted to file ammended complaints... you
know, late in the game... would, ah, the *other* guys, you know, *I*B*M*, be
permitted to, too? I mean, fair's fair, no?
The Flatlander
Yes siree, I am just *dying* to see how that goes over. The biggest patent
portfolio in the country. Why stop with four? 40 is a number, too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:02 PM EST |
The Judge has to come to the conclusion that this case is guided by outside
enfluence. When someone turns in required work on the eve of a consented
deadline and their work shows they applied just enough motivation to meet the
bare minimum requirements! jeesh! a fool can see its become a game. I hope the
Judge realizes that the handling of this case and the mockery of judicial
proceedings allowed to develop will set a precedent. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mistlefoot on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:05 PM EST |
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/02/05/bus2.feat.dumbest.moments/index.html
A
bit off topic....but I thought he nice to see Darl made fun of. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dumb or Dumber - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:30 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:55 PM EST |
PJ,
What time is the court date on Friday?
Where on the web would we be able to look it up?
Pete[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:48 PM EST |
Could this be just another SCO stalling tactic, or is there more to it than
that?
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 12:07 AM EST |
Ok I am not a lawyer. From reading this site I understand that SCO had a right
to amend their complaints, although it is pushing the deadline.
So why this big letter with lots of precedents saying "you really have to
let us amend our complaint"? Is this standard procedure everytime someone
wants to amend a complaint?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:48 AM EST |
Undue delay is one of the acceptable reasons to deny. SCO has been late
for or handed over on the very last day so many things already. The judge was
clearly disappointed in their response and request for more time back in
December so he granted the motion to compel by January 12th. Well, SCO handed
over some documents for what they were specifically required to, but not for the
others. IBM had argued that since SCO kept requesting extentions and failed to
produce much at all to that date, they didn't think SCO was ever going to
produce it. That was probably the case as in the mad rush to produce everything
in one month since they didn't have anything ready yet, they forgot about the
Christmas holiday and couldn't come up with some things from people that were on
vacation.
Now they are handing over yet another document on the very
last day it is due. If the document was all typed up, why did they have a blank
("__th day of February, 2004"). Only the day is blank, but the "th" would imply
a number greater than 3 (1'st', 2'nd', 3'rd', '4'th, '5'th, etc.). If they know
they were going to hand it in on the 4th (it was probably written Wednesday
morning), why leave that blank? Maybe in case they missed the deadline? Maybe
incorrect usage (1th, 2th, 3th) is common in legal documents, IANAL. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:04 AM EST |
that they will be allowed to consolidate their suit against Novell.
Otherwise this motion makes NO SENSE.
Because the success of a copyright claim here depends on another as yet
unresolved lawsuit the Judge should probably deny the motion because allowing it
and defeating it would be inevitable (futitly of the amendment)but would'nt
prevent SCO from coming back with it again later if they prevailed aghainst
Novell. Does that sound like undue delay or bad faith to anybody?
certainly they could already argue that Novell should be added as a party, since
Novell has repeated invoked the contract in dispute to waive the 'rights' SCO
has abus^H^H^H^H excercised under said contract.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|