Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


December 7, 2009

ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., PLAINTIFF
v.
BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC., DEFENDANT
BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC., CONSOLIDATED PLAINTIFF
v.
ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., CONSOLIDATED DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge

(Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2009, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 668) to prevent, or in the alternative to stay, execution of the non-final judgment, filed by Bridgeport Fittings, Incorporated ("Bridgeport"), wherein Bridgeport observes that the court has not yet rendered judgment on two Whipper-Snap connector models,*fn1 and that the judgment in the above-captioned matter is therefore not "final" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), (see id. at 3), and recognizing that a final decision is one "issued by the trial court which 'ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment,'" Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)), and that "[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay," FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b), and it appearing that the judgment in the above-captioned matter is not final and not subject to execution at the present juncture, see Gerardi v. Pelullo, 16 F.3d 1363, 1371 n.13 (3d Cir. 1994) (explaining that "a judgment that is not otherwise final . . . is not subject to execution until the certification under Rule 54(b) is entered"); see also In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 401 F.3d 143, 162-63 (3d Cir. 2005) (Ambro, J., concurring), and that Arlington Industries, Incorporated ("Arlington") has not filed a motion for entry of a Rule 54(b) certification on those products judged to be infringing by the jury,*fn2 it is hereby ORDERED that Bridgeport's motion (Doc. 668) to prevent, or in the alternative to stay, execution of the non-final judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Execution on the non-final judgment is premature at this time and a stay of execution is unnecessary.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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