InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 7
Posts 810
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/13/2005

Re: PhenixBleu post# 43025

Tuesday, 10/15/2019 2:03:14 AM

Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:03:14 AM

Post# of 50023
Correct. They presented the required exhibits that the judge instructed them to submit in the time frame he ordered them to present them when he issued the order that included a denial “at this time”

without prejudice.

Exact same ruling “without Prejudice” as he ruled on Rontans MTD. Issues were fixed.

In the case of the MTD there was an amended statements of claim along with the complete original complaint to “fix” the issue.

In the case of the motion to seal/MSJ. If they had not “fixed” the issue of no exhibits being attached with the motion, which is expressly discussed in the judges ruling to deny without prejudice. (114 9/27/2019). The motion to seal is denied without prejudice. Unless the parties come to some agreement on the exhibits not submitted on 9/30/2019 that will allow the judge to move ( make a ruling) this motion will not survive. (114 9/27/2019)

The motion to seal is germane to the MSJ. The MSJ could not move forward without the exhibits that Rontan was trying to seal. This is clearly stated in the ruling (114). In the paragraph that begins ..... “On September 12, Defendants filed a motion for Partial Summary Judgement (94) defendants did not attach any of the exhibits referenced...........” (there, the MSJ “words” are in the ruling) Also in the paragraph immediately following are the “words” “at this time I will deny the Motion” ( your claim that these words are not found in the ruling is false) and then further defines the issues and remedies to “fix” the issues associated with the motion to Seal (109) and the subject matter of the motion to seal—the partial summary judgement motion (94)

Judges do not insert other motions into ruling unless they are Germane to each other. His comments and ruling clearly state the relation of the Motion to seal and the motion for partial summary judgement by extension a denial of the motion to seal denies the MSJ “at this time” the judge even reiterated the connection in the final paragraph of his ruling and then again by Order @ 4.