Welcome to F.I.E.L.D.- the First Ismaili Electronic Library and Database. Guests are not required to login during this beta-testing phase

2011-02-08 - Motion for Judgment by Plaintiff

MOTION

Text of Motion for Judgment by 'plaintiff' 2011-02-11

On February 8, 2011, After refusing to discuss any of the terms of the proposed Order, The 'Plaintiff' filed a Motion for Judgment. This means that the parties will not agree to a draft of an order, and want the Judge to draft the Order.

REPLY by Defendants

Text of Defendants' Reply to the Motion for Judgment 2011-02-16

Even though they intend to appeal the order, the defendants replied to the Motion for Judgment suggesting modifications to the Order because the draft presented by the 'Plaintiff' does not correspond to the Judgment given by Justice Harrington.

Counter- REPLY by Plaintiff

Text of Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendant's Representations 2011-02-22

On February 11, 2011, Counsel for Plaintiff replied by reiterating that

- He wants to keep the order broad and prevent the defendants from keeping Any copies of Any Farmans in Any format. (Is this plausibly coming from the Imam who has recommended that Ismailis Read and share Farmans at every occasion?)

- He wants accounting of Damages, Profits, and of all sales of books, and wants to conduct a discovery to investigate these. (Is this plausibly coming from the Imam who said 4 times during discovery that "those who have them can keep them", and who saids he did not want any costs?)

Final ORDER issued for Summary Judgment

Text of the Final Order for Summary Judgment 2011-03-04

On March 14, 2011, Judge Harrington issued the Final Order:

- He started by stating that the Order sought by the Plaintiff was indeed too Broad. He was asking for more than was awarded. (Would the Imam do this?)

- He removed some items from the Plaintiff's draft, but still made a very broad order that prevents defendants from having any copy of any Farman from any source, and that allows the "plaintiff' to ask for who the books were sold to. It will require the defendants to further modify their Notice of Appeal.

AttachmentSize
2011-02-16 - Representations Alnaz Jiwa Feb 16.pdf28.06 KB
2011-02-22 - Written Representation in Reply (Plaintiff's Rule 369 Motion for Judgment).pdf146.8 KB
20110304-Judgment March 4.11.pdf74.52 KB

Back to top