SCO Grp v. Novell Inc, No. 2:2004cv00139 - Document 781 (D. Utah 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 775 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 03/08/2010. (asp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR FURTHER RULING ON MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 vs. NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:04-CV-139 TS Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. This matter is before the Court on Defendant s Motion for Further Ruling on its Motion in Limine No. 4. In its Motion in Limine No. 4, Defendant sought to preclude Plaintiff from contesting that Defendant had an objectively reasonable, good faith basis for its statements regarding copyright ownership. Defendant s Motion was based on the Court s summary judgment ruling wherein the Court held, in relation to Plaintiff s unfair competition and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, that Defendant had an objectively reasonable, good faith basis for its statements regarding copyright ownership. The Court granted Defendant s Motion in Limine No. 4 to the extent that it sought to preclude Plaintiff from pursuing the copyright ownership portion of its breach of the implied covenant of good faith and 1 fair dealing claims.1 Defendant s current Motion seeks to clarify that Plaintiff should not be allowed to contest, as to any claim, that Defendant had an objectively reasonable, good faith basis for its statements regarding copyright ownership. Defendant s Motion is simply an attempt to reargue a position that it has already lost. The Court has already ruled on this issue in denying Defendant s Request for Judicial Notice of Prior Factual Findings.2 The current Motion essentially asks the Court to reconsider its prior ruling. The Court declines to do so. Defendant s law of the case argument fairs no better. The cases cited by Defendant in support of its argument address the issue of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel will bar a claim if four elements are met: (1) the issue previously decided is identical with the one presented in the action in question, (2) the prior action has been finally adjudicated on the merits, (3) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication, and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is raised had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.3 Here, the first element is not met because the issue previously decided is not identical to the issue in the action in question. As indicated, the ruling upon which Defendant relies dealt with unfair competition and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, it did not concern Plaintiff s slander of title claim. Therefore, Defendant s collateral estoppel claim fails. 1 Plaintiff is no longer pursuing its unfair competition claim. 2 Docket No. 763. 3 Moss v. Kopp, 559 F.3d 1155, 1161 (10th Cir. 2009). 2 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant s Motion for Further Ruling on Motion in Limine No. 4 (Docket No. 775) is DENIED. DATED March 8, 2010. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 3
]]>
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.
