Corp
Please show us how F&J and IDCC surrendered their remedy of vacatur? Ah, you cannot do so because F&J and IDCC procured the vacatur prior to dismissing the case. BanCorp involved a motion for vacatur and appeal of a psj after the settlement of the case, not before. This is a clear case of a judge going circular to make a ruling. Nok clearly sat on its right to intervene. It did not have the restraint of a covenant not to challenge and therefore should not have been permitted to intervene in the first place. They cited the BanCorp case that had nothing to do with the vacatur obtained in the IDCC/Ericy case. The judge knew this and later hung her hat on a sui sponte ruling which was at best intellectually dishonest under the facts and circumstances present at the time.
You can attempt to spin your disparaging remarks all you want, but the facts demonstrate that F&J knew exactly what was needed for vacatur at the time and executed same prior to the dismissal of the causes of action. If they had dismissed and later made the motion for vacatur, your theory would hold water. Facts are facts and you are holding a leaky bucket.
MO
loop
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
