Sheets Law PLLC

General

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Cases6

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

Practice Areas

Software, SecurityTransport., E-Comm.Biotech

Top Attorneys

Patrick J. CoyneNeal S. CohenPeter Kinsella

Elite Ratings

DCTPTABCAFC

Ratings

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

PTAB

CAFC

Analytics

Lawyers

Cases

Ratings Trends

Practice Areas

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
05/12/23	Afterglow LLC v. Jessup Mfg Co 1:22-CV-02902 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On 5/12/2023, the parties filed a document 41 entitled "Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice." A proper stipulated dismissal would, in the ordinary course, constitute a self-executing act without the need for a separate court order. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (FRCP 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Yet a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order only if the notice of dismissal is filed "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). If the opposing party has already served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, an automatic dismissal can occur only if the stipulation of dismissal is "signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant Jessup Manufacturing Company has already filed an answer 21 35, but the stipulation of dismissal was signed only by Defendant (it is represented as agreed to by Plaintiff). Based on the Court's understanding of the parties' intent, however, the Court will construe the stipulated dismissal 41 as an unopposed motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consistent with that Rule, and in recognition of Defendant's pending counterclaim 35 (see FRCP 41(a)(2) and that Rule's treatment of counterclaims), the motion is granted, and the case is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the stipulation of dismissal. To the extent any party objects to the substance of this order, they may file a short, written objection on or before 5/19/2023 asking that the case be reinstated. In the alternative, the parties may, if they so choose, file a corrected joint stipulation of dismissal. Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. Plaintiff's motion 36 to dismiss the counterclaim is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 05/12/2023) MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On 5/12/2023, the parties filed a document 41 entitled "Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice." A proper stipulated dismissal would, in the ordinary course, constitute a self-executing act without the need for a separate court order. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (FRCP 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Yet a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order only if the notice of dismissal is filed "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). If the opposing party has already served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, an automatic dismissal can occur only if the stipulation of dismissal is "signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Defendant Jessup Manufacturing Company has already filed an answer 21 35, but the stipulation of dismissal was signed only by Defendant (it is represented as agreed to by Plaintiff). Based on the Court's understanding of the parties' intent, however, the Court will construe the stipulated dismissal 41 as an unopposed motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consistent with that Rule, and in recognition of Defendant's pending counterclaim 35 (see FRCP 41(a)(2) and that Rule's treatment of counterclaims), the motion is granted, and the case is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the stipulation of dismissal. To the extent any party objects to the substance of this order, they may file a short, written objection on or before 5/19/2023 asking that the case be reinstated. In the alternative, the parties may, if they so choose, file a corrected joint stipulation of dismissal. Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. Plaintiff's motion 36 to dismiss the counterclaim is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 05/12/2023)
05/12/23	Afterglow LLC v. Jessup Mfg Co 1:22-CV-02902 ( N.D. IL )	STIPULATION of Dismissal Joint (Gasey, Arthur) (Entered: 05/12/2023)
05/12/23	Afterglow LLC v. Jessup Mfg Co 1:22-CV-02902 ( N.D. IL )	***Civil Case Terminated. (ef, ) (Entered: 05/12/2023)
01/11/22	Datrec LLC v. Amwell Inc 1:22-CV-00025 ( E.D. VA )	Updated Civil Docket 10-04-2022
07/08/22	Datrec LLC v. Bitrix Inc 1:22-CV-00026 ( E.D. VA )	Final report on the determination of an action. (kgall) (C/S to USPTO) (Entered: 07/08/2022)
07/08/22	Datrec LLC v. Bitrix Inc 1:22-CV-00026 ( E.D. VA )	So Ordered in re 6 Voluntary Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 7/7/2022. (kgall) (Entered: 07/08/2022)
06/03/22	Afterglow LLC v. Jessup Mfg Co 1:22-CV-00014 ( E.D. VA )	Case transferred from Virginia Eastern has been opened in Northern District of Illinois as case 1:22-cv-02902. (jlan) (Entered: 06/03/2022)
01/21/22	Verna IP Holdings LLC v. Everbridge Inc 1:22-CV-00027 ( E.D. VA )	Do not docket pleadings in 1:22cv27. This case was transferred to Richmond and pleadings should be docketed in Case Number 3:22cv018. (ldab, ) (Entered: 01/21/2022)