Below is a link to an article regarding Judge Cassell and his post-judgeship plans.
Archive for the ‘Judge Paul G. Cassell’ category
TRACY J. ERCANBRACK, Plaintiff, vs. WASHINGTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, PURGATORY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendants.
Case No. 2:06-cv-313
United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43033
June 13, 2007
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 14, 2007. Plaintiff’s response was due on April 13, 2007. On April 20, 2007, Magistrate Judge Nuffer granted an extension to file the response with the new deadline being May 18, 2007. On May 31, 2007, no response had been filed and the court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to show cause as to why it should not grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to his non-opposition. The court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to respond within ten days.
Plaintiff’s counsel responded with a filing that stated (in whole):
“COMES NOW, Plaintiff, through Counsel, in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summery Judgment stating that there is no legal grounds upon which Defendant should be granted Summer Judgment. Plaintiff will more fully outline his opposition in Supporting Memorandum. Plaintiff would request that a hearing be set to provide Oral Argument in this matter.”
Plaintiff’s counsel filed no supporting memorandum with the above document.
In dismissing the case, Judge Cassell stated: “It is not the job of the court or of the defendants to make the plaintiff’s arguments for him, and the court deems arguments not addressed in an opposition to be abandoned.”
NAVAJO NATION, Plaintiff, vs. LDS FAMILY SERVICES, Defendant.
Case No. 2:06cv00909
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89913
December 12, 2006
During her pregnancy, Sarah Ashley Ziska contacted LDS Family Services about possibly placing her unborn child for adoption. Ms. Ziska eventually informed Family Services the probable father of her unborn child was of Navajo ancestry. Because no one had registered with the Utah Putative Father Registry with regard to Ms. Ziska’s unborn child, Family Services proceeded with the adoption process.
On February 14, 2005, Ms. Ziska gave birth to a baby girl. On February 25, 2005, Ms. Ziska voluntarily relinquished her parental rights to the child in front of a Utah state court judge. The Utah state courts have continued to preside over the adoption proceedings.
In this case, the Navajo Nation challenges the adoption procedures used by LDS Family Services. Specifically, the Navajo Nation requested the court to determine if the federal Indian Child and Welfare Act applies when a natural Native American father is unable to establish his paternity under state law, and if it creates a private right of action for the Navajo Nation.
The Court ruled that the Navajo Nation did not demonstrate the state court proceeding provided an inadequate forum to hear the claims raised in its petition. The court, therefore, held that it is necessary to abstain from this matter.
LDS Family Services’ Motion to Dismiss granted.
Attached is a wonderful bio for Judge Paul G. Cassell that is posted on the Federal Bar Association, Utah Chapter website.
KLEIN-BECKER USA, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; KLEIN-BECKER IP HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and BASIC RESEARCH, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs, vs. VITABASE.COM, LLC, an expired Georgia Limited Liability Company; COAD INC., a Georgia Corporation; OB LABS; GREG HOWLETT, an individual, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59292
August 21, 2006
Judge Paul G. Cassell
On August 11, 2006, plaintiff Klein-Becker USA filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement, false advertising under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, tortious interference with existing and prospective economic relations, unfair competition and civil conspiracy against the named defendants.
Klein-Becker alleges that the named defendants had violated numerous federal and state statutes by manufacturing, distributing and selling anti-stretch mark and anti-aging products that are the same product as that owned by Klein-Becker. Klein-Becker also claimed that defendants use bait-and-switch tactics on their website by advertising and discussing Klein-Becker’s product and then offering their own products comparable to Klein-Becker’s.
Among other claims, Klein-Becker also alleges that it was entitled to a preliminary, and thereafter permanent, injunction against the defendants because it would suffer immediate and irreparable harm. On August 18, 2006, Klein-Becker subsequently moved for a temporary restraining order.
The court held that it is “unable to grant Klein-Becker’s temporary restraining order until it [Klein-Becker] provides certification to the court about efforts it has made to give notice to the defendants, and the reasons supporting the claim that notice was not required.”
Motion for a temporary restraining order denied.
Nevertheless, the court also commented: “The court’s denial of Klein-Becker’s motion for a temporary restraining order does not comment on the chances of any motion for preliminary injunction that it might choose to file in the future. The court does not view the ‘practical effect’ of denying this temporary restraining motion as any decision on the merits of a preliminary injunction motion that might be filed by Klein-Becker at a later time. Indeed, there is every indication that the court ‘contemplates a prompt hearing on a preliminary injunction’ once Klein-Becker serves the defendants and seeks relief from the court through that avenue.”