STAUFFER v. BROOKS BROTHERS, INC. , No. 13-1180 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 11, 2013.
 The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 17, 2013.

Download PDF
Case: 13-1180 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 09/05/2013 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ RAYMOND E. STAUFFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKS BROTHERS, INC., AND RETAIL BRAND ALLIANCE, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND UNITED STATES, Intervenor-Appellee. ______________________ 2013-1180 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 08-CV-10369, Judge Sidney H. Stein. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER Case: 13-1180 2 Document: 41 STAUFFER Page: 2 Filed: 09/05/2013 v. BROOKS BROTHERS, INC. Raymond E. Stauffer moves for reconsideration of the court s June 27, 2013 order denying his motion for leave to file an oversized principal brief. In the alternative, Mr. Stauffer moves to limit all appellees to a single joint brief not to exceed 14,000 words. Brooks Brothers opposes. Because Mr. Stauffer s motion for reconsideration is untimely, the court need not consider his arguments regarding his principal brief. See Fed. Cir. R. 27(l) ( [A] party seeking review by the court of the action of a single judge . . . must file a motion for reconsideration within 14 days of the entry of the order. ). This court s rules generally allow different appellees represented by different counsel to file their own briefs. See Fed. Cir. R. 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) Mr. Stauffer s motion is denied. 2) Mr. Stauffer s brief, not to exceed 30 pages, is due within 14 days of this order. If Mr. Stauffer s brief is not filed by that time, the appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. FOR THE COURT /s/ Daniel O Toole Daniel O Toole Clerk s25

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.