set to introduce evidence in support of its preliminary motion 1
is denied. Furthermore, this interference need not be prolonged
any further by allowing Bouzida to file a request for
reconsideration at a later time. We have before us Bouzida’s
request for reconsideration, which is decided in this paper.
Accordingly, there is no occasion to allow Bouzida to refile what
it has already filed.
Bouzida states in its response to the order to show cause
that if the board does not grant Bouzida’s motion for a testimony
period, then we should consider Bouzida’s arguments as to why
judgment should not be entered against Bouzida (Paper 55 at 2).
Bouzida’s arguments as to why judgment should not be
entered against it are based on the premise that the three judge
panel erroneously decided Bouzida preliminary motion 1. Even if
we were to agree with Bouzida, which we do not, judgment would
still be entered against Bouzida. That judgment can be entered
against one party does not preclude judgment from being entered
against another party. There can be two losers in a two party
interference. Thus, the mere fact that Bouzida does not agree
with our decision to deny its preliminary motion 1 does not
preclude the panel from entering judgment against Bouzida.
Bouzida’s response to the order to show cause is essentially
a request for reconsideration of the denial of Bouzida
preliminary motion 1. Accordingly, we treat it as such.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007