From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rudolf Techs., Inc. v. Camtek, Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jul 22, 2016
Civil No. 05-1396 (JRT/FLN) (D. Minn. Jul. 22, 2016)

Opinion

Civil No. 05-1396 (JRT/FLN)

07-22-2016

RUDOLF TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. CAMTEK, LTD., Defendant.

Thomas R. Johnson, William D. Schultz, Daniel W. McDonald, Joseph E. Lee, and Rachel C. Hughey, MERCHANT & GOULD PC, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 3200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for plaintiffs. Claude M. Stern, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Fifth Floor, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 ; Felipe Corredor, David Bilsker, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, 50 California Street, Suite 22nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 ; Mark T. Smith, COOLEY LLP, 3175 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, CA 93404; and James Magnuson, Vincent J. Fahnlander and William F. Mohrman, MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendant.


ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Thomas R. Johnson, William D. Schultz, Daniel W. McDonald, Joseph E. Lee, and Rachel C. Hughey, MERCHANT & GOULD PC, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 3200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for plaintiffs. Claude M. Stern, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Fifth Floor, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 ; Felipe Corredor, David Bilsker, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, 50 California Street, Suite 22nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 ; Mark T. Smith, COOLEY LLP, 3175 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, CA 93404; and James Magnuson, Vincent J. Fahnlander and William F. Mohrman, MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendant.

Based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated June 24, 2016, all the files and records, and no objections having been filed to said Report and Recommendation,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Supersedeas Bond No. 09185259 (Docket No. 1081) is GRANTED. Camtek must pay Rudolph the amount owed to it, including interest accruing.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. DATED: July 22, 2016
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

s/John R. Tunheim

JOHN R. TUNHEIM

Chief Judge

United States District Court


Summaries of

Rudolf Techs., Inc. v. Camtek, Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jul 22, 2016
Civil No. 05-1396 (JRT/FLN) (D. Minn. Jul. 22, 2016)
Case details for

Rudolf Techs., Inc. v. Camtek, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:RUDOLF TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. CAMTEK, LTD., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Date published: Jul 22, 2016

Citations

Civil No. 05-1396 (JRT/FLN) (D. Minn. Jul. 22, 2016)