UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 21, 2010
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; AND GE WIND ENERGY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS,
THOMAS WILKINS, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OPPOSITION TO GE'S MOTION
Defendant, Thomas Wilkins, has filed a request for leave to "file supplemental opposition to GE's motion for preliminary injunction."
This matter has been the subject of highly contentious disputes among counsel over what subject matter was in dispute and whether it was appropriate to hold a hearing on an application for preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff in July 2010, and set for hearing October 18, 2010. With full knowledge of that dispute and potential consequences, Defendant elected to submit the authorities, evidence, request for judicial notice, and argument presented at the hearing of the motion.
Plaintiffs correctly assert that Defendant's request is a disguised motion for reconsideration that does not comply with the requirements of California Eastern District Local Rule of Court 230(j).
The motion for preliminary injunction was originally filed July 9, 2010. Defendant has had more than three months to prepare to oppose the motion and for its hearing. The briefing schedule for the motion was set October 1, 2010 and in view of objections asserted by Defendant, a clarifying order was issued October 12, 2010 to inform the parties that the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion would go forward on October 18, 2010.
Defendant's counsel made an informed and voluntary strategic decision to proceed with the opposition and argument submitted.
The motion for preliminary injunction has been ruled upon in open court, an oral order and statement of decision was stated on the record, and is awaiting formalization through findings and conclusions and a written order. The Request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.