CALICO BRAND v. AMERITEK IMPORTS, 408 Fed.Appx. 363 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

CALICO BRAND, INC. and Honson Marketing Group, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERITEK IMPORTS, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant, and ACME International Enterprises, Inc., Defendant-Cross Appellant.

Nos. 2008-1324, 2008-1325, 2008-1341.United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
February 4, 2011.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 05-CV-205, Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh.

ON MOTION
ORDER
Calico Brand, Inc. and Honson Marketing Group, Inc. (Calico) move to lift the stay of proceedings and set a briefing schedule with respect to its claims against Acme International Enterprises, Inc. Acme responds and “takes no position” on the motion.

These appeals were stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 upon the filing of Ameritek Imports, Inc.’s bankruptcy petition. Calico asserts that the appeals with respect to Acme should proceed. The court notes that it has not received a recent status report from Ameritek regarding the status of the bankruptcy proceedings following the status report received on September 28, 2010. A status report was due in December of 2010. It appears from a review of the bankruptcy court docket that proceedings before that court may be completed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Ameritek is directed to file a status report in 2008-1324, -1325 within 14 days concerning the status of the bankruptcy proceeding. If this court does not receive a status report, Ameritek’s cross appeal, 2008-1325, will be dismissed, the stay of the briefing schedule will be lifted, Calico’s opening brief will be due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order, and 2008-1324, -1341 will proceed.

(2) The motion is denied without prejudice to renewal.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

MOTT v. DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, No. 2017-1222 (Fed. Cir. 1/26/2018)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________…

8 years ago

BIAS v. UNITED STATES, No. 2017-2116 (Fed. Cir. 1/26/2018)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________…

8 years ago

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Nos. 2016-2684, 2017-1922 (Fed. Cir. 1/25/2018)

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L., Plaintiff-Appellee…

8 years ago

MAXLINEAR, INC. v. CF CRESPE, LLC, No. 2017-1039 (Fed. Cir. 1/25/2018)

?United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MAXLINEAR, INC., Appellant v. CF…

8 years ago

KENNEDY v. UNITED STATES, No. 2016-1512 (Fed. Cir. 1/17/2017) [SLIP COPY]

?United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ JASON CARL KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant v.…

9 years ago

IN RE GPAC INC., 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

In re GPAC INC. No. 93-1216.United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Decided June 20,…

9 years ago