• May 12, 2011

Update No. 2 (May 12, 2011):  Defendants’ “reconsideration gambit” failed.  Plaintiff then turns around and tries its luck at the same game.

This case, brought in 2008, is set for trial Sept.6, 2011.  With the potential upside of punitive damages knocked out (at least until a successful appeal of the denial of leave to amend to add a punitive damages claim), perhaps the parties will finally find some mutually agreeable resolution short of trial…

Update (April 6, 2011):  Defendants take a shot at the delicate process for appealing a judge’s decision to the very same judge whose decision went against them (discussing “compelling circumstances” meriting leave to file “this extraordinary motion”) (commonly known as asking the Court to “reconsider“).

Oh well.  Why not ask the Court to rule against itself?  What’s the worst that can happen? A one word order, “Denied”?  (Maybe it could be worse (from the Webb Candy v. Walmart case))?

Plaintiff Cenveo opposes defendants’ request for leave to seek reconsideration.

Original Post (March 25, 2011):  What is healthy commercial competition as opposed to improper and unlawful business treachery? The extremes of the continuum are easily understood but the shades of gray in the middle, less so.

Regular Minnesota Litigator readers will be familiar with the Cenveo v SGS case.   They and others might be interested in U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim‘s (D. Minn.) attempt to distinguish competitive commercial conduct in the “gray zone” in his Memorandum and Order on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (granted in part, denied in part), issued today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *