Shirley McQuillan Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Sorbothane, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

Ninth Circuit

Shirley McQuillan Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Sorbothane, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

23 F.3d 1531, 94 Daily Journal DAR 6198, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3258, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10201

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1994

Docket89-55326, 89-55329 and 89-55332

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F.3d 1531 (Shirley McQuillan Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Sorbothane, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shirley McQuillan Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Sorbothane, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 23 F.3d 1531, 94 Daily Journal DAR 6198, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3258, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10201 (9th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

The mandate in this case issued October 19, 1991. The Supreme Court denied' the petition for certiorari of appellants Sorbo-thane, Inc., Hamilton-Kent, BTR and Kenneth M. Leighton. See Sorbothane, Inc. v. McQuillan, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1358, 122 L.Ed.2d 738 (1993). Thus, the judgment is final as to these appellants.

As to the appellants Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr., the Supreme Court granted their petition for certiorari for *1532 the limited purpose of deciding whether proving an attempt to monopolize under Section 2 of the Sherman Act requires proof of a dangerous probability of monopolization of a relevant market. See Spectrum Sports Inc. v. McQuillan, — U.S.-,-, 113 S.Ct. 884, 889,122 L.Ed.2d 247 (1993). The Court held that such proof was required, and reversed our prior decision as to Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr. and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 892.

However, the Court has been informed by counsel that the appellees’ judgment has been paid in full by Sorbothane, Inc., Hamilton-Kent, BTR and Kenneth M. Leighton. Further, the appellees have taken the position in their brief filed January 24,1994, that this case has been settled and that litigation between them and Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr. has ended. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr. because of mootness and remand to the district court with directions to dismiss. See Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 82, 108 S.Ct. 388, 391, 98 L.Ed.2d 327 (1987) (holding that the established practice in the federal courts when a ease becomes moot is for the appellate court to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with directions to dismiss).

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

The mandate in this case issued October 19, 1991. The Supreme Court denied' the petition for certiorari of appellants Sorbo-thane, Inc., Hamilton-Kent, BTR and Kenneth M. Leighton. See Sorbothane, Inc. v. McQuillan, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1358, 122 L.Ed.2d 738 (1993). Thus, the judgment is final as to these appellants.

As to the appellants Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr., the Supreme Court granted their petition for certiorari for *1532 the limited purpose of deciding whether proving an attempt to monopolize under Section 2 of the Sherman Act requires proof of a dangerous probability of monopolization of a relevant market. See Spectrum Sports Inc. v. McQuillan, — U.S.-,-, 113 S.Ct. 884, 889,122 L.Ed.2d 247 (1993). The Court held that such proof was required, and reversed our prior decision as to Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr. and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 892.

However, the Court has been informed by counsel that the appellees’ judgment has been paid in full by Sorbothane, Inc., Hamilton-Kent, BTR and Kenneth M. Leighton. Further, the appellees have taken the position in their brief filed January 24,1994, that this case has been settled and that litigation between them and Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr. has ended. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr. because of mootness and remand to the district court with directions to dismiss. See Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 82, 108 S.Ct. 388, 391, 98 L.Ed.2d 327 (1987) (holding that the established practice in the federal courts when a ease becomes moot is for the appellate court to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with directions to dismiss).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F.3d 1531, 94 Daily Journal DAR 6198, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3258, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shirley-mcquillan-plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants-v-sorbothane-ca9-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack