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.

DAVIS v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP

United States District Court, Southern District of New York


March 19, 2003

ALTOVISE GORE DAVIS, SOLE RESIDUAL LEGATEE OF THE ESTATE OF SAMMY DAVIS, JR., AND SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SYNI CORP., PLAINTIFF(S),
v.
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO MGM RECORDS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANT(S).

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laura Taylor Swain, United States District Judge

ORDER

The Court received Defendant Universal Music Group's ("UMG") motion for summary judgment, with memorandum of law in support, on April 4, 2002. The papers do not include a certification pursuant to Rule 1. A.1. of the Individual Practices Rules of the undersigned. That Rule provides:

Informal efforts to resolve issues required. Prior to making any motion, and prior to requesting a conference on any discovery issues, the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve informally the matters in controversy. Such efforts shall include, but need not be limited to, an exchange of letters outlining their respective legal and factual positions on the matters and at least one telephonic or in-person discussion of the matters. The movant, or party requesting a discovery conference, shall include in its motion papers or written request a certification that it has used its best efforts to resolve informally the matters raised in its submission.
The Court finds that such prior communication is often useful in facilitating settlement, consensual resolution of the subject matter of the motion or, at a minimum, narrowing of issues presented for decision by the Court.

At a pretrial conference held in this matter on April 12, 2002, Defendant UMG was directed to filed certification of its compliance with Rule 1.A.1 by May 6, 2002. The certificate was never filed. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the above-referenced motion is hereby TERMINATED for purposes of the Court's docket, without prejudice to reinstatement upon application, upon notice to adverse parties and accompanied by the requisite certification; it is further

ORDERED, that no response to the motion is required unless a reinstatement application is granted, in which case the time to respond of any adverse party shall be calculated from the date of service of the order of reinstatement and in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

20030319

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



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.