A lawyer named Thor
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handles cases OTHER than ones involving patents. It is not a "patent" court. One such case is Evans v. US .
Within the decision one finds text:
One might have supposed that the Government, hav- ing found itself mired in this messy litigation in three different courts, would readily accede to plaintiffs’ pro- posal for a voluntary dismissal of the district court cases. This would get those cases laid to rest and permit the Government to concentrate its efforts on the merits of the Court of Federal Claims case. To so suppose would be a mistake.
AND
Furthermore, we must confess to some puzzlement over exactly what all this sturm und drang7 is about. We must wonder why plaintiffs originally sought on appeal the roundabout course of a remand for the trial courts to reconsider, rather than seeking a simple and straightfor- ward vacature in the first instance. And even more puzzling is why the Government, after Bright was de- cided, pursued the course it chose in the district courts and in this appeal, seeking with every possible argu- ment—even if so thin as to border on the frivolous—to avoid acquiescing in plaintiffs’ effort to have the district court judgments put aside and to proceed on the merits in the Court of Federal Claims.
Footnote 7: See Friedrich Maximilian von Klinger, Der
7 Wirrwarr, oder Sturm und Drang (1776).
AND
In this appeal, it is clear beyond peradventure that these district court cases can play no useful role in the resolution of the merits case before the Court of Federal Claims, which is the only case that now matters in this litigation. Accordingly, in the interest of judicial effi- ciency and economy, we summarily vacate the judgments in these two district court cases, and remand with in- structions that the trial courts promptly dismiss the respective cases without prejudice, nunc pro tunc.
As a footnote to this post, the attorney for the plaintiffs is nicknamed "Thor":
MARK F. (“THOR”) HEARNE, II, Arent Fox, LLP, of Clayton, Missouri, for all plaintiffs-appellants.
Within the decision one finds text:
One might have supposed that the Government, hav- ing found itself mired in this messy litigation in three different courts, would readily accede to plaintiffs’ pro- posal for a voluntary dismissal of the district court cases. This would get those cases laid to rest and permit the Government to concentrate its efforts on the merits of the Court of Federal Claims case. To so suppose would be a mistake.
AND
Furthermore, we must confess to some puzzlement over exactly what all this sturm und drang7 is about. We must wonder why plaintiffs originally sought on appeal the roundabout course of a remand for the trial courts to reconsider, rather than seeking a simple and straightfor- ward vacature in the first instance. And even more puzzling is why the Government, after Bright was de- cided, pursued the course it chose in the district courts and in this appeal, seeking with every possible argu- ment—even if so thin as to border on the frivolous—to avoid acquiescing in plaintiffs’ effort to have the district court judgments put aside and to proceed on the merits in the Court of Federal Claims.
Footnote 7: See Friedrich Maximilian von Klinger, Der
7 Wirrwarr, oder Sturm und Drang (1776).
AND
In this appeal, it is clear beyond peradventure that these district court cases can play no useful role in the resolution of the merits case before the Court of Federal Claims, which is the only case that now matters in this litigation. Accordingly, in the interest of judicial effi- ciency and economy, we summarily vacate the judgments in these two district court cases, and remand with in- structions that the trial courts promptly dismiss the respective cases without prejudice, nunc pro tunc.
As a footnote to this post, the attorney for the plaintiffs is nicknamed "Thor":
MARK F. (“THOR”) HEARNE, II, Arent Fox, LLP, of Clayton, Missouri, for all plaintiffs-appellants.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home