Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Veoxo Corp. v. Affinity Internet

November 2, 2007

VEOXO CORP., ETC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
AFFINITY INTERNET, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

During yesterday's status hearing this Court ordered that the long-pending motion for preliminary injunction that had been filed on behalf of plaintiff Veoxo Corp. ("Veoxo") was denied, stating in part that one reason for denial was that the motion had impermissibly been filed by layman Justin London ("London," the original named plaintiff, who had initially brought this action pro se) on behalf of the corporate plaintiff. Attorney Robert Thurston, who had since appeared on Veoxo's behalf, then stated that he had also filed such a motion on its behalf.

After the hearing this Court verified what attorney Thurston had said, although this Court had earlier been aware only of London's attempted filing. This Court accordingly corrects the record in that respect, but the motion for preliminary injunctive relief remains denied for the other reason that this Court had identified orally during the status hearing: That motion had been permitted to lie fallow for over 2-1/2 months since its August 15 filing, and such a failure to have pursued the matter actively negates any notion that such preliminary relief is called for.

20071102

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.