Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Avnet, Inc., et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On September 30, 2004, this Court entered its Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Paragraph 17 L of that order provided as follows: 18 "All dispositive motion shall be filed no later than August 19, 2005. Each party shall 19 file no more than one motion for summary judgment unless leave of Court is obtained." 20 On May 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted in part 21 and denied in part by the Court on October 24, 2005. The motion included a request that the 22 Court rule that Defendant Maag was jointly and severally liable for Defendant Avnet's 23 copyright infringement. Summary judgment on this issue was denied. The Court found that 24 Plaintiff offered no evidence concerning Maag's pay structure or stock-ownership and "there 25 fore, it cannot be said as a matter of law that Maag had a financial interest in encouraging the 26 infringement." 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB Document 138 Filed 01/06/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dan Coogan, Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV04-0621-PHX-SRB ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff has now filed a motion captioned "Plaintiff's Motion for Holding Allen Maag Jointly and Severally Liable as to Any Damages." While the motion cites no rule pursuant to which it is filed, it is clearly a second motion for summary judgment on the issue of Defendant Maag's joint and several liability, a motion already filed and denied. Plaintiff did not seek leave to file a second motion for summary judgment nor did he seek leave to file a second motion for summary judgment on an issue already addressed in his prior motion for summary judgment. IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiff's Motion for Holding Allen Maag Jointly and Severally Liable as to Any Damages. The motion is specifically prohibited without leave of Court and leave of Court will not be granted to allow Plaintiff to file a second motion for summary judgment on the same issue already decided in his prior motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 120).

DATED this 6th day of January, 2006.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB Document 138 Filed 01/06/2006 Page 2 of 2