Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Santa's Best Craft L v. St. Paul Fi, 11-2115 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Number: 11-2115 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 29, 2012 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge SANTA’S BEST CRAFT, LLC, SANTA’S ) Appeal from the United States BEST, and H. S. CRAFT MANUFACTURING ) District Court for the Northern CO., ) District of Illinois, Eastern ) Division Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) No. 04 C 1342 No. 11-2115 ) Robert W. Gettleman, Judge. v. ) ) ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANC
More
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 29, 2012 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge SANTA’S BEST CRAFT, LLC, SANTA’S ) Appeal from the United States BEST, and H. S. CRAFT MANUFACTURING ) District Court for the Northern CO., ) District of Illinois, Eastern ) Division Plaintiffs‐Appellants, ) ) No. 04 C 1342 No. 11‐2115 ) Robert W. Gettleman, Judge. v. ) ) ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant‐Appellee. ) ORDER On consideration of the petition of plaintiffs‐appellants for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc filed June 5, 2012, in the above‐captioned case, all of the judges on the panel voted to deny are hearing, and no other member of the court has voted* to hear this case en banc. Therefore, the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The dispositive order filed May 23, 2012, is amended as follows: No. 11‐2115 Page 2 The eleventh line of the continuing paragraph on page two, which reads: “to consider on remand if the “’primary focus’” should read “to consider on remand if a “’primary focus’”. The second line of the first full paragraph on page two, which reads: “trade dress claims was the primary focus” should read “trade dress claims was a primary focus”. The fourth line of the second full paragraph on page two, which reads: “the district court concluded that the primary focus of the JLJ settlement” should read “the district court concluded that a primary focus of the JLJ settlement”. The second line of the third full paragraph on page two, which reads: “the primary focus of the JLJ settlement” should read “a primary focus of the JLJ settlement”. The eighth line of the third full paragraph on page two, which reads “was not the primary focus” should read “was not a primary focus”. The fourth line of the continuing paragraph on page three, which reads “was the primary focus” should read “was a primary focus”. * Judge Rovner is recused from voting on this matter.
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer