Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 2:10-CV-00106-LRH-PAL. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160210e33
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . Before the court is defendants Rimini Street, Inc. ("Rimini") and Seth Ravin's ("Ravin") (collectively "defendants") conditional cross-motion for reconsideration. Doc. #916. 1 Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc.; Oracle America, Inc.; and Oracle International Corporation (collectively "Oracle") filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. #955) to which defendants replied (Doc. #978). Defendants filed the present conditional cross-motion seeking reconsideration
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . Before the court is defendants Rimini Street, Inc. ("Rimini") and Seth Ravin's ("Ravin") (collectively "defendants") conditional cross-motion for reconsideration. Doc. #916. 1 Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc.; Oracle America, Inc.; and Oracle International Corporation (collectively "Oracle") filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. #955) to which defendants replied (Doc. #978). Defendants filed the present conditional cross-motion seeking reconsideration ..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Before the court is defendants Rimini Street, Inc. ("Rimini") and Seth Ravin's ("Ravin") (collectively "defendants") conditional cross-motion for reconsideration. Doc. #916.1 Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc.; Oracle America, Inc.; and Oracle International Corporation (collectively "Oracle") filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. #955) to which defendants replied (Doc. #978).
Defendants filed the present conditional cross-motion seeking reconsideration of all the court's evidentiary rulings in the event that (1) plaintiff Oracle files a motion for a new trial, and (2) the court grants the motion. See Doc. #916. In their motion, defendants specifically state that they are not seeking a new trial. Rather, defendants condition the present motion on Oracle first filing a motion for new trial. Plaintiff Oracle did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, defendants' conditional cross-motion is moot and the court shall deny it accordingly.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' conditional cross-motion for reconsideration (Doc. #916) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Refers to the court's docket number.
Source: Leagle
