First, with respect to Judge Scriven's ability to impose sanctions even after the underlying case is gone: Judges always retain jurisdiction to address sanctions, and she is free to do so here if she so chooses. Whether she will or not is a different question: it would be unusual, but she seemed pretty pissed off.
Second, with respect to Judge Chen's order: Recall that his previous order (which was implemented by this order) was without prejudice to the defendant filing a motion for attorneys' fees. There may well be further proceedings there, if the defendant chooses to do so.
I am confused -- the online docket indicates the court took the motion under advisement, which means she has not ruled on the motion for default. Is the docket wrong, or are people misreporting what happened?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by blarf.
Two points.
First, with respect to Judge Scriven's ability to impose sanctions even after the underlying case is gone: Judges always retain jurisdiction to address sanctions, and she is free to do so here if she so chooses. Whether she will or not is a different question: it would be unusual, but she seemed pretty pissed off.
Second, with respect to Judge Chen's order: Recall that his previous order (which was implemented by this order) was without prejudice to the defendant filing a motion for attorneys' fees. There may well be further proceedings there, if the defendant chooses to do so.
I am confused -- the online docket indicates the court took the motion under advisement, which means she has not ruled on the motion for default. Is the docket wrong, or are people misreporting what happened?