Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P.

Federal Circuit

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedAugust 17, 2011

Docket2011-1418

StatusUnpublished

This text of Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P. (Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P., (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Plocintiff-Appellant, ' V. ALTITUDE CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. AND SECURITY RESEARCH I'IOLDINGS, LLC, Defendcmts-Cr0ss Appellants. - 2011-1418, -1463 ` Appeals from the United States District Court for the N0rthern District of California in case no. 09-CV-3449, Judge Jeffrey S. White. ON MOTION ORDER Jun.iper NetWorks, Inc. moves to reform the caption to designate it as the appellant Altitude Capital Partners, L.P. et al.'s (Altitude Capital) moves for an extension of time to file its brief. Upon review of the papers submitted, it appears that A1titude Capital's cross-appeal may be seeking review of a judgment in the favor of the defendants and that the

JUN1PER NETWORKS V. ALTITUDE CAPITAL 2 defendants could argue as an alternative ground for affirmance of the dismissal judgment that the district court could have dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction A cross-appeal may only be filed "When a party seeks to enlarge its own rights under the judgment or to lessen the rights of its adversary under the judg- ment." Bo:iley v. Dart Con,tarlner Corp., 292 F.3d 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A party may cross-appeal if ad- versely affected by the appealed judgment in some par- ticular which it seeks to have modiEed." TypeRight Keyboo:rd Corp. v. Micr0soft C0rp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1156-57 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Aventis Pharm,a S.A. v. Hospira, In,c., 637 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (dismissing improper cross-appeal). Upon consideration thereof, IT ls ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions are granted. The revised official cap- tion is reflected above. (2) A_ltitude Capital is directed to show cause, within 14 days of the date of filing of this order, why its cross- appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Juniper Networks may also respond within that time The briefing schedule is stayed, pending this court's receipt of any responses and the court's consideration of the papers submitted. FoR THE CoURT 1 7 lsi Jan Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk ccc J0nathan S. Kagan, Esq. Sara A. P0ulos, Esq. F¢-|_E[) El.S. COURT 0F APPEALS FOR 58 THE FEDERAL ClRCU1T AUG 1 7 2011 .IAN HORBALY CLEF§f

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Plocintiff-Appellant, ' V. ALTITUDE CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. AND SECURITY RESEARCH I'IOLDINGS, LLC, Defendcmts-Cr0ss Appellants. - 2011-1418, -1463 ` Appeals from the United States District Court for the N0rthern District of California in case no. 09-CV-3449, Judge Jeffrey S. White. ON MOTION ORDER Jun.iper NetWorks, Inc. moves to reform the caption to designate it as the appellant Altitude Capital Partners, L.P. et al.'s (Altitude Capital) moves for an extension of time to file its brief. Upon review of the papers submitted, it appears that A1titude Capital's cross-appeal may be seeking review of a judgment in the favor of the defendants and that the

JUN1PER NETWORKS V. ALTITUDE CAPITAL 2 defendants could argue as an alternative ground for affirmance of the dismissal judgment that the district court could have dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction A cross-appeal may only be filed "When a party seeks to enlarge its own rights under the judgment or to lessen the rights of its adversary under the judg- ment." Bo:iley v. Dart Con,tarlner Corp., 292 F.3d 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A party may cross-appeal if ad- versely affected by the appealed judgment in some par- ticular which it seeks to have modiEed." TypeRight Keyboo:rd Corp. v. Micr0soft C0rp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1156-57 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Aventis Pharm,a S.A. v. Hospira, In,c., 637 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (dismissing improper cross-appeal). Upon consideration thereof, IT ls ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions are granted. The revised official cap- tion is reflected above. (2) A_ltitude Capital is directed to show cause, within 14 days of the date of filing of this order, why its cross- appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Juniper Networks may also respond within that time The briefing schedule is stayed, pending this court's receipt of any responses and the court's consideration of the papers submitted. FoR THE CoURT 1 7 lsi Jan Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk ccc J0nathan S. Kagan, Esq. Sara A. P0ulos, Esq. F¢-|_E[) El.S. COURT 0F APPEALS FOR 58 THE FEDERAL ClRCU1T AUG 1 7 2011 .IAN HORBALY CLEF§f

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juniper-networks-inc-v-altitude-capital-partners-lp-cafc-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack