Seth Baker, et al v. Microsoft Corporation
Original Case: 2:11-cv-00722
| Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals | |
| Case #: | 0:12-cv-35946 |
| Type | civil / private |
| Nature of Suit | 190 Contract - Other Contract |
| Case Filed: | Nov 15, 2012 |
| Terminated: | Jan 29, 2018 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Jan 31, 2018 12:29 AM PST |
|
Amicus Curiae
WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
SETH BAKER
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
MATTHEW DANZIG
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
JESSE BERNSTEIN
|
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
JAMES JARRETT
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
NATHAN MARLOW
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
MARK RISK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Mar 18 2015
FILED OPINION (MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON and CARLOS T. BEA) REVERSED AND REMANDED. Judge: JBR Authoring, Judge: CTB Concurring. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [9461496] |
|
|
GPO
Jul 20 2015
Filed order and amended opinion (MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON and CARLOS T. BEA). The slip opinion dated March 18, 2015 is hereby amended as follows: Page 11 - insert the following footnote at the end of the first paragraph: Our decision in Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1979), is not to the contrary. There, putative class plaintiff Huey???s motion for class certification was denied in the district court. Id. at 1236. Subsequently, Huey???s individual action was called for trial, but Huey made no appearance; accordingly, the district court dismissed Huey???s action for want of prosecution. Id. Huey attempted to appeal the denial of class certification, but this court explained that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. We explained that the strong policy of giving trial judges the ability ???to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases??? meant that plaintiffs who had failed to prosecute their claims lost the ability to appeal the denial of class certification. Id. at 1239 (quoting Sullivan v. Pacific Indem. Co., 566 F.2d 444, 445???46 (3rd Cir. 1977)). However, Huey does not control here. Unlike that proceeding, Baker did not fail to appear before the district court after the class action allegations were struck. In fact, Baker stipulated to dismiss his individual claim, giving up a valuable right in the process. Our cases recognize that a stipulated dismissal of an individual claim is an adverse and appealable final judgment, Berger, 741 F.3d at 1065, as does a leading treatise. See 7B Charles Allan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure ?? 1802 (3d ed. 2005). With this amendment, Judges Rawlinson and Bea voted, and Judge Hawkins recommended, to deny the Petition for En Banc Rehearing. The full court has been advised of the Petition for En Banc Rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote. Microsoft Corporation???s Petition for En Banc Rehearing, filed on April 1, 2015, is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted; Amending Disposition Opinion REVERSED AND REMANDED. [9615106] |
| 1. | Appeals court revives Microsoft Xbox 360 console defect litigation (arstechnica.com) |
| Submitted Fri 03/20/2015 | |
| Docket last updated: 01/31/2018 12:26 AM PST |
| Thursday, November 15, 2012 | ||
| 1 | 1
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 11/23/2012. Appellants opening brief due 02/25/2013. Appellee Microsoft Corporation answering brief due 03/25/2013. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [8403677] (KM) [Entered: 11/15/2012 02:39 PM]
|
|