LAITRAM MACHINERY, INC.
v.
CARNITECH A/S, a Danish corporation, Seafood Equipment Development Corp., and Skrmetta Machinery Corp.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
October 2, 1995.
October 2, 1995.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Barry Louis LaCour, Laitram Corp., Harahan, LA, Robert Perry McCleskey, Jr., Warren Anthony Cuntz, Jr., Phelps Dunbar, New Orleans, LA, Timothy J. Malloy, Gregory J. Vogler, D. David Hill, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Chicago, IL, for Laitram Machinery Inc.
Bernard Marcus, Charles Kirk Reasonover, Marc J. Yellin, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, LA, for Carnitech A/S.
Harry Simms Hardin, III, Patrick Hannon Patrick, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Portevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, LA, Elsie T. Apthorp, Maitland, FL, for Seafood Equipment Development Corp.
Charles Emmett Pugh, National Law Offices of Pugh/Associates, Patent & Trademark Attorneys Ltd., New Orleans, LA, for Skrmetta Machinery Corp.
Charles Emmett Pugh, Rickey Ray Hudson, National Law Offices of Pugh/Associates Patent & Trademark Attorneys Ltd., New Orleans, LA, for Dennis Skrmetta, Barbara Skrmetta, Eric Skrmetta, and Melissa Skrmetta.
Robert Perry McCleskey, Jr., Warren Anthony Cuntz, Jr., Phelps Dunbar, New Orleans, LA, Timothy J. Malloy, Gregory J. Vogler, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Chicago, IL, for Laitram Corporation, George Charles Lapeyre, Brent A. Ledet, James M. Lapeyre, Donald Quick, and James Saul.
Barry Louis LaCour, Laitram Corp., Harahan, LA, Robert Perry McCleskey, Jr., Warren Anthony Cuntz, Jr., Phelps Dunbar, New Orleans, LA, Timothy J. Malloy, Gregory J. Vogler, D. David Hill, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Chicago, IL, for Asgeir Bjarnasson.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
ORDER AND REASONS
JONES, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is "Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment," filed by Skrmetta Machinery Corporation, which was taken under submission on a previous date without oral argument. After reviewing the memoranda of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part.
Background
Defendant Skrmetta Machinery Corporation...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
