General Electric Company, et al. v. Wilkins

Filing 242

ORDER RE: General Electronic Company and GE Wind Energy LLC's Motion to Dismiss 192 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/9/2011. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
WILLIAM F. LEE (admitted pro hac vice)
RICHARD W. O’NEILL (admitted pro hac vice)
ELIZABETH M. REILLY (admitted pro hac vice)
LOUIS W. TOMPROS (admitted pro hac vice)
ADAM S. GERSHENSON (admitted pro hac vice)
ALEX C. BOUDREAU (admitted pro hac vice)
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
ANDREA JEFFRIES (State Bar No. 180408)
350 South Grand Avenue, Suit 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Lowell T. Carruth, # 034065
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,
Wayte & Carruth LLP
P.O. Box 28912
5 River Park Place East
Fresno, CA 93720-1501
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AND
GE WIND ENERGY, LLC

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20
21

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New
York corporation; and GE WIND ENERGY,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,

22
23

ORDER RE: GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY AND GE WIND ENERGY
LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(DOCKET NO. 192)

v.

24

Case No. 1:10-CV-00674-OWW-JLT

THOMAS WILKINS, an individual,
Defendant.

25
26
27

///

28

///
30740/00007-1781393.v1

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
1:10-CV-00674-OWW-JLT

1

Plaintiffs General Electric Company and GE Wind Energy LLC’s Motion to Dismiss

2

(Docket No. 192) came on regularly for hearing on June 27, 2011. Appearing on behalf of the

3

Plaintiff, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, were Lowell T. Carruth and Andrea W. Jeffries.

4

Appearing on behalf of Defendant Thomas Wilkins was William C. Hahesy. Appearing on

5

behalf of Intervenor, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas,

6

Inc., was Steven J. Barber. The Court heard argument from counsel. The Court, after reviewing

7

all points and authorities submitted on behalf of all parties and oral argument, issues the Order

8

attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full.

9

Specifically,

10
11
12

1.

Defendant’s conversion and unjust enrichment counterclaims are DISMISSED,

without prejudice; and
2.

Defendant shall file an amended counterclaim within fifteen days following

13

electronic service of this memorandum decision. Plaintiff shall file its reply within fifteen days

14

following service of any amended counterclaim.

15
16
17

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 9, 2011

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18

DEAC_Sig nature-END:

19

emm0d64h

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30740/00007-1781393.v1

2
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
1:10-CV-00674-OWW-JLT