Deseret News article re. Judge Cassell

Posted November 26, 2007 by H. Craig Hall, Jr.
Categories: Judge Paul G. Cassell

Below is a link to an article regarding Judge Cassell and his post-judgeship plans.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695230194,00.html

Advertisements

Judge Paul G. Cassell to resign

Posted September 21, 2007 by H. Craig Hall, Jr.
Categories: Judge Paul G. Cassell

U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell submitted his resignation today, saying he is stepping down to return to teaching at the University of Utah and advocating for crime victims.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6960452

See his resignation letter here.

Judge Dee Benson – Motion for Preliminary Injunction denied

Posted July 6, 2007 by H. Craig Hall, Jr.
Categories: Civil, Judge Dee Benson, Patent law

ANDERSEN MANUFACTURING, INC., an Idaho Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. DIVERSI-TECH CORP., a Utah Corporation, ANGELA BUDGE, and PAUL BUDGE, Defendants

2007 U.S. District LEXIS 47925

Case No.: 2:05-CV-923, Consolidated with 2:07-CV-88

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

July 2, 2007 – Judge Dee Benson

Plaintiff Andersen Manufacturing, Incorporated requested a preliminary injunction preventing Diversi-Tech Corporation from continuing its alleged infringement of a patent for an extruded aluminum trailer hitch.

The Court stated that “in order to merit the grant of a motion for preliminary injunction, a movant must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case; (2) irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the other party under the preliminary injunction; and (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest.”

The Court expressed concerns regarding the validity of the Anderson patent, particularly in regard to the obviousness of the apparatus. As to the two item of uniqueness claimed by the plaintiff, the Court states: “there is support for the proposition that both a trailer hitch drop bar and aluminum alloy are well-known elements in the prior art.”

“Accordingly, Andersen’s motion for a preliminary injunction fails to meet the burden of step 1. Andersen has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits due to significant questions as to the validity of the ‘412 patent.”

Watch out local music downloaders

Posted July 6, 2007 by H. Craig Hall, Jr.
Categories: Civil, Copyright law, Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

If anyone in Provo has been illegally downloading music, watch out.

Several music companies have been granted approval by Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells to issue a subpoena to identify the names, addresses and phone numbers of four Provo internet company customers who are being sued for music piracy.

The internet company has already publicly stated they will not contest the subpoena and will fully cooperate.

See link to opinion here.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C680196757%2C00.html

Candidate for President-Elect / Young Lawyers Division – Utah State Bar

Posted June 19, 2007 by H. Craig Hall, Jr.
Categories: Craig's commentary

I am running for President – Elect of the Young Lawyers Division of the Utah State Bar. Voting will take place June 25 – 29, 2007. Those eligible to vote include members of the Utah State Bar under 36 years of age as well as members who have been admitted to their first state bar for less than three years, regardless of age.

For those interested in seeing more detailed information regarding my platform and qualifications, see this link.

Judge Ted Stewart – Motion for Summary Judgment granted

Posted June 19, 2007 by H. Craig Hall, Jr.
Categories: Civil, Judge Ted Stewart

MILNE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. USA CYCLING INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:05-CV-675 TS

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42579

June 11, 2007

Judge Ted Stewart

This case stems from injuries sustained by Plaintiff Robert Milne, and fatal injuries sustained by Ben Hall, participants in the 2004 Tour of Canyonlands (“TOC”) mountain bike race, near Moab, Utah, as a result of a collision with a truck/trailer driven by Defendant Konitshek.

“Race Defendants” (USA Cycling, Inc., Cycle Cyndicate, Inc., and Eric Jean) organized, promoted, and conducted the race.

Plaintiffs stipulated that Mr. Hall and Mr. Milne knowingly and voluntarily executed a release agreement wherein they agreed to waive any and all claims, including those arising from Race Defendants’ own negligence, and release Defendants from all liability for injuries or death suffered while competing in the TOC race.

In short, the court granted the motion for summary judgment (due to the signed release) and dismissed the negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death claims against the Race Defendants. Claims still remain against the driver of the vehicle.

Judge Paul G. Cassell – Motion for Summary Judgment granted

Posted June 19, 2007 by H. Craig Hall, Jr.
Categories: Civil, Electronic filing, Judge Paul G. Cassell, Local rules, Magistrate Judge David Nuffer

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.”

Case dismissed.