MedCorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 428

ORDER re: 425 Order on Motion to Dismiss Zoll Industriess Counterclaims. In so doing, the Court ordered that [e]ach party shall pay its own attorneys fees and costs. (Id.) Given the Courts instant ruling on the Defendants/Counterclaimants Motion fo r Attorneys Fees, the Court HEREBY WITHDRAWS that portion of its May 6, 2011 Order regarding attorneys fees and costs which is inconsistent with the Courts ruling today that Defendants/Counterclaimants are entitled to an award of their reasonable att orneys fees in this matter. Accordingly, the Court deems the Motion for Attorneys Fees confessed and the Motion is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART, i.e., to the extent that it seeks the recovery of reasonable attorneys fees. The Court hereby REFERS the Motion for Attorneys Fees to Magistrate Judge Kirsten L. Mix for a Recommendation as to what constitutes a reasonable fee award in this case. by Judge William J. Martinez on 5/18/2011. (erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00867-WJM-KLM
MEDCORP, INC., an Ohio Corporation,
Plaintiff
v.
PINPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
ZOLL DATA SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER WITHDRAWING PORTION OF MAY 6, 2011 ORDER AND GRANTING IN
PART AND REFERRING DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
_____________________________________________________________________
On April 4, 2011, Defendants/Counterclaimants filed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
arguing that Defendants/Counterclaimants are entitled to recover their reasonable
attorneys’ fees under the Licensing Agreement executed between the parties in 1998.
(ECF No. 419.) Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion and the time for doing so has long
since passed.1 Accordingly, the Court deems the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees confessed
and the Motion is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART, i.e., to the extent that it seeks the
recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Court hereby REFERS the Motion for

1

On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff’s Receiver filed a Response to the Motion for Attorneys’
Fees stating that the terms of his receivership do not authorize him to participate in this
litigation. (ECF No. 426.)

Attorneys’ Fees to Magistrate Judge Kirsten L. Mix for a Recommendation as to what
constitutes a reasonable fee award in this case.
Additionally, on May 6, 2011, the Court granted Defendants/Counterclaimants’
Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Zoll Industries’s Counterclaims. (ECF No. 425.) In so
doing, the Court ordered that “[e]ach party shall pay its own attorney’s fees and costs.”
(Id.) Given the Court’s instant ruling on the Defendants/Counterclaimants’ Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees, the Court HEREBY WITHDRAWS that portion of its May 6, 2011
Order regarding attorney’s fees and costs which is inconsistent with the Court’s ruling
today that Defendants/Counterclaimants are entitled to an award of their reasonable
attorneys’ fees in this matter.

Dated this 18th day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2