"Eighty Percent of Success is Just Showing Up"
By Todd
We like Woody Allen and think his joke concerning how one succeeds in this world is often a valuable proscription for defendants in misappropriation cases.
Some of the named defendants in the case of ACS Consultant Company, Inc. v. Williams et al., 2006 WL 897559 (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2006) (slip copy) didn't heed Woody's words when they failed to make an appearance at the preliminary injunction hearing United States Federal Judge Zatkoff had in his courtroom. As the readers of this blog surely know, one of the inquiries federal judges make when deciding whether to issue an injunction is whether the defendants will be harmed in a manner that exceeds the benefit to the plaintiff were the court to enter the order. BUT if you don't show up for the hearing to make the argument "this is really going to harm us if you enjoin us," it would be predictable that the court will probably not make that argument for you.
The Court's order identified above enjoined the non-appearing defendants in some significant ways. The defendants, not residents of or present in Michigan, probably figure that if they live in California that they'll just fight enforcement of the Court's order in their neck of the woods. Stay tuned on this one - federal judges do not like to be ignored and it's possible that a future blog post you'll read from us is "Federal Judge in Michigan Finds California Defendants in Contempt of an Order They Didn't Even Defend Against." We'll see.
Some of the named defendants in the case of ACS Consultant Company, Inc. v. Williams et al., 2006 WL 897559 (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2006) (slip copy) didn't heed Woody's words when they failed to make an appearance at the preliminary injunction hearing United States Federal Judge Zatkoff had in his courtroom. As the readers of this blog surely know, one of the inquiries federal judges make when deciding whether to issue an injunction is whether the defendants will be harmed in a manner that exceeds the benefit to the plaintiff were the court to enter the order. BUT if you don't show up for the hearing to make the argument "this is really going to harm us if you enjoin us," it would be predictable that the court will probably not make that argument for you.
The Court's order identified above enjoined the non-appearing defendants in some significant ways. The defendants, not residents of or present in Michigan, probably figure that if they live in California that they'll just fight enforcement of the Court's order in their neck of the woods. Stay tuned on this one - federal judges do not like to be ignored and it's possible that a future blog post you'll read from us is "Federal Judge in Michigan Finds California Defendants in Contempt of an Order They Didn't Even Defend Against." We'll see.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home