Opinion
C. A. No. N12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD
12-04-2014
Re: PICA v. Hewlett-Packard Company
Blake A. Bennett, Esquire Cooch & Taylor, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Michael P. Kelly, Esquire McCarter & English Renaissance Centre 405 North King Street, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801
Blake A. Bennett, Esquire
Cooch & Taylor, P.A.
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 10 Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Michael P. Kelly, Esquire
McCarter & English
Renaissance Centre
405 North King Street, 8 Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Dear Counsel:
I am considering Hewlett-Packard's Motion for Expedited Limited Relief from Judgment or Order Pursuant to Rule 60(b) and Hewlett-Packard's Motion, Pursuant to Rule 62, to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Resolution of Motions and Post-Trial Appeal (Hewlett-Packard's Judgment Motions").
The Order entered November 13, 3014 clearly contemplated that the Court would retain jurisdiction, pending resolution of the 5 enumerated Motions. I am not persuaded that there is any substantive distinction between orders entered under Rules 54(b) and 58(1). Rule 58(1) is explicitly subject to the provisions of Rule 54(b). However, it is in the interest of all parties to avoid any potential procedural quagmire. The logical path forward is to resolve the outstanding post-trial motions without divesting the Superior Court of jurisdiction through a premature appeal.
PICA shall file its response to Hewlett-Packard's Judgment Motions by December 10, 2015. Specifically, what is PICA's position on the propriety of a stay of execution of the judgment, on the condition of a supercedeas bond? Obviously, the best result would be if the parties can reach an agreement that preserves appellate rights, as well as orderly presentation of post-trial motions.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary M. Johnston
Judge Mary M. Johnston