Motion To Dismiss Settlement Agreement

Serta claimed casper had injured his mattress patent. Casper asked for a summary verdict for non-counterfeiting. On June 18, 2018, the parties, as these applications were still pending, entered into a transaction agreement that required, among other things, Casper to cease production and marketing of certain products by mid-July and to pay a settlement amount by June 28, 2018. Two days later, the court granted Casper`s summary findings, without mentioning the comparison. Casper then refused to pay. 1. Romén-Oliveras v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth. (PREPA), 797 F.3d 83, 86-87 (1st Cir.

2015) (enforcement power of a binding oral regulation before dismissal); Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 540 (4 cir. 2002); Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978). 2. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.

of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994); Langley v. Jackson State Univ., 14 F.3d 1070, 1073 (5th cir. 1994). 3. In re Masters Mates – Pilots Pension Plan, 957 F.2d 1020, 1025 (2d Cir. 1992); See Taylor v. United States, 181 F.3d 1017, 1032 n.10 (9 cir 1999); Haken v. State of Ariz., Dept. Corr., 972 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9 cir.

1992). 4. Sansom Comm. v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1535, 1538 (3d Cir. 1984). 5. See United States v. Int`l Bhd. of Teamsters, 970 F.2d 1132, 1137 (2d Cir. 1992); In re Masters Mates – Pilots Pension Plan, 957 F.2d to 1026.

6. United States v Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov`t, 591 F.3d 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2010). 7. Molski against. 318 F.3d 937, 946 (9. Cir. 2003) (Bezirksgericht cannot unilaterally change the provisions of an approval decision by its approval order of the proposed decree).

8. Rufo v. Suffolk County Jail Inmates, 502 U.S. 367, 388-390 (1992); See USA and Chi City, 978 F.2d 325, 333 (7 cir. 1992). 9. See crochet, 972 F.2d to 1016. 10. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60 (b) (5). 11th Fed. R. Civ. 59 (e). 12. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384 (amendment of Rule 60 B) (5) of the order approving the institutional reform of conditions of detention). 13.

Rufo, 502 United States to 383. 14. Rufo,502 United States at 383 n.7; United States vs. Sec`y of Housing – Urban Develop., 239 F.3d 211, 217 (2d Cir. 2001). 15. Rufo, 502 United States to 385; See New York State Ass`n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956, 969 (2d cir, 1983). 16. Rufo, 502 United States to 385. 17.

See United States v. Asarco Inc. 430 F.3d 972, 979-982 (9).