Greenshift Corporation (GERS)

[Dutch1]

In short, what I read from the filing is that the settlement between CC and the defendants had something to do with the attorneys fees.
Now Greenshift wants to continue with the appeal, but the defendants disagree. They say they first need to agree on those costs.
But it seems like the GERS is allowed to request for the continuation of the appeal.
Now this stay is mostly to work out this argument. GERS asks for a briefing schedule on the appeal, and the defendants ask for a schedule to workout the attorneys fees first.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. English isn't my mother tongue, so it is hard to understand everything.


"Appellants have conferred with counsel representing Defendants / Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellees - and they are in agreement with the filing of this Joint Status Report, except for a disagreement as to whether the stay of this Appeal should be continued, as discussed below."

"Judge Miller extended the stay of the MDL action until February 28, 2018, and set a Telephone Status Conference for March 8, 2018. (Id.)
In the MDL action, on February 1, 2018, Judge Miller denied CleanTech’s Motion for Reconsideration. (MDL D.I. 1735.) In the N.D. Ill action, Judge Pallmeyer has not yet ruled on CleanTech’s fully-briefed Motion for Reconsideration, and CleanTech’s supplemental response brief is all that remains for briefing on Defendant Adkins Energy’s motion for an exceptional case declaration to be complete."

"Since all of Appellants’ post-judgment motions have been denied, the Judgment entered by Judge McKinney on September 15, 2016 is a Final Judgment on the merits, which is no longer being tolled under Fed. R App. P. 4(a)(4)
.... It is well-established that the pendency of a motion for attorneys’ fees does not affect the finality of a judgment on the merits, or the right of Appellants to proceed with a prompt appeal of that judgment."

"Appellants note that, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iii) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), the district court has the discretion to suspend finality of its judgment – and, thus, prevent the losing party from proceeding with its substantive appeal - while it considers the prevailing party’s motion for attorneys’ fees."

"Thus, there is simply no basis for this appellate court to prevent Appellants from going forward with their appeal."

"Accordingly, Appellants respectfully request entry of a briefing schedule, with Appellants’ principal brief to be due 60 days after entry of the schedule,§ per CAFC Rule 31(a)(1)(A).
Appellees object to Appellants’ attempt to argue the merits of the stay of the appeal in this status report.
Appellees request that this Court maintain the stay of the appeal pending briefing and a decision on their exceptional case motion and motion for legal fees"

"Accordingly, Defendants/Appellees seek a continuation of the stay, with a status report due on June 15, 2018."

"In the alternative, in the event the Court intends to consider Appellants’ request to lift the stay of the instant appeal, Appellees seek a briefing schedule to submit a formal motion to stay this appeal pending resolution of Defendants’ motion in the MDL action to have the case declared exceptional and for their costs and attorneys’ fees."

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/05268896-bed6-4ed6-9613-412272a56ac3