Replies to post #34260 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[JMH14865]

Monty:

I suppose the question I have is:

If the Cisco 13 can't decide an equitable division of the total settlement for each, would the courts even care and have them make the payment and figure that out later OR could the parties stall the trial process until that equitable division is determined?

I know the courts would not allow this to continue on and on, but would this be taken into consideration as a tactic to stall out the process for a year,,,two years,,,?

I could imagine new suits to be filed by some of the parties against some of the other parties as they don't agree on the 'equitable distribution'. I realize that is not a Chanbond or UOIP problem, but one the courts could review and agree to a continuance of the case until that matter is determined?

[Monte_Cristo]

Before I discuss settlement, which I hope to get to in the next post, let me refer you to Judge Andrews' decision a few days ago on June 9th in Astrazeneca v. Sigmapharm. In that case, both plaintiffs and defendants asked for the scheduled trial date to be pushed back because of the complexity of the case (complex set of facts, overseas witnesses, etc.) and the fact that the defendants had changed lawyers a couple times (and it's much harder for new lawyers to simply pick up where past lawyers left off). Judge Andrews denied their joint request. He said, given all the alleged complexities, the parties were expected to plan for the existing dates. And regarding the new lawyers ... well, they're expected to adhere to the existing schedule. Andrews = no nonsense.

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently denied the parties’ joint request to modify the case schedule, without prejudice to be renewed as directed in the Court’s order. AstraZeneca LP v. Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, No. 15-1000-RGA (D. Del. June 9, 2017). In particular, the Court noted that the bases for the parties’ request, the complexity of the case and the change in counsel of several defendants, should not require a continuance of the trial and pretrial conference dates. Therefore, Judge Andrews would extend the close of fact discovery, subject to the parties either expediting expert discovery or forgoing Daubert motions so that the trial schedule could be maintained.

Read: https://www.delawareiplaw.com/files/2017/06/AstraZeneca-LP-et-al.-v.-Sigmapharm-Laboratories-LLC-et-al.-C.A.-No.-15-1000-RGA.pdf