SCO Grp v. Novell Inc

Filing 180

Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NOVELL'S THIRD, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH COUNTERCLAIMS filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent)

Download PDF
SCO Grp v. Novell Inc Doc. 180 Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 180 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 4 Brent O. Hatch (5715) Mark F. James (5295) HATCH, JAMES & DODGE 10 West Broadway, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone: (801) 363-6363 Facsimile: (801) 363-6666 Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice) Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, New York 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Facsimile: (954) 356-0022 Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Bank of America Tower Suite 2800 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (305) 539-1307 Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH THE SCO GROUP, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. NOVELL, INC., Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff. SCO'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NOVELL'S THIRD, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH COUNTERCLAIMS Case No. 2:04CV00139 Honorable Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 180 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 2 of 4 Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, the SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Novell, Inc.'s ("Novell's") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction and in Support of SCO's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, respectfully moves this Court to enter summary judgment for SCO on Novell's Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims, or, in the alternative, to enter partial summary judgment for SCO on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims. SCO is entitled to summary judgment on Novell's Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims because the evidence of the parties' intent under the APA and Amendments thereto is undisputed in SCO's favor. In the alternative, SCO is entitled to partial summary judgment on Novell's counterclaims for a constructive trust and/or accounting under its Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth causes of action on the grounds that Novell cannot satisfy the elements for such relief. Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 180 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 3 of 4 For the forgoing reasons, and as more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum, this Court should enter summary judgment or partial summary judgment in favor of SCO. DATED this 12th day of December, 2006. HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. Brent O. Hatch Mark F. James BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Robert Silver Stuart H. Singer Stephen N. Zack Edward Normand Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc. By: /s/ Brent O. Hatch 2 Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Document 180 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Cross Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims was served on Defendant, Novell, Inc., on this 12th day of December, 2006, via CM/ECF to the following: Thomas R. Karrenberg John P. Mullen Heather M. Sneddon ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 700 Bank One Tower 50 West Broadway Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Michael A. Jacobs Matthew I. Kreeger MORRISON & FOERSTER 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 /s/ Brent O. Hatch

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?