Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02077/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL~ D 

Unit.ed States Court of Ap;:=.!:; IH THE UHITBD STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circui~ 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAI BASIC FOUR, INC., 

a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BASIS, INC., a New Mexico 

corporation; THOMAS A. OLSON; 

SCOTT AMSPOKER; and RUSSELL 

B. KEPLER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER OH REHEARING 

APR2 l 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2077 

Before MCKAY, Chief Judge, HOLLOWAY, ALDISERT*, LOGAH, SEYMOUR, 

MOORE, AHDERSOH, TACBA, BALDOCK, BRORBY, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit 

Judges. 

Defendants-Appellees Basis International Ltd., Thomas Olson, 

Scott Amspoker and Russell Kepler (collectively "Basis"), have 

petitioned this Court for rehearing and suggested rehearing en 

bane, concerning our opinion reversing the district court's grant 

of a preliminary injunction against Plaintiff-Appellant MAI Basic 

Four, Inc. ("MAI") restraining the filing or threatening of 

lawsuits against third-party resellers of Basis' software 

products. See MAI Basic Four. Inc. v. Basis Int'l Ltd., No. 

90-2077 (Mar. 9, 1992). 

The hearing panel, Judges Holloway, Aldisert and Ebel, on 

*The Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior Circuit Judge of the 

Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-2077 Document: 010110243066 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 1
consideration of the petition for rehearing, a response requested, 

and a supplemental record ordered, finds and concludes that the 

petition should be denied. In its petition, Basis asserts that 

our opinion is factually in error because it relies, in part, on 

the existence of counterclaims for injunctive relief asserted in 

Basis' Answer to the Complaint in the proceedings below. Although 

not reflected in the record before us at the time we rendered our 

opinion, there was a stipulation entered before the district court 

on June 29, 1989, dismissing the counterclaim. The supplemental 

record we requested reflects this change in the underlying facts. 

Following these submissions, the panel reconsidered that 

portion of the opinion dealing with the jurisdictional question 

and the potential application of the rule announced in Hershey 

Foods Corp. v. Hershey Creamery Co., 945 F.2d 1272 (3d Cir. 1991), 

to the facts as now appear before us. We conclude, however, that 

the Hershey opinion is not persuasive in the circumstances of the 

instant appeal and that we should continue to adhere to the ruling 

in Tri-State Generation & Transmission Assoc. v. Shoshone River 

Power, Inc., 874 F.2d 1346, 1351 (10th Cir. 1989), which supports 

our conclusion that the injunctive order before us is immediately 

appealable under 28 u.s.c. S 1292(a)(l). 

Accordingly, by order of the hearing panel, our former 

opinion entered in No. 90-2077 on March 9, 1992, is WITHDRAWN. 

The attached opinion, reflecting the appropriate factual 

corrections, is filed herewith as a substitute for the withdrawn 

opinion and reflects the new opinion of the court. For these 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2077 Document: 010110243066 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 2
reasons, by order of the hearing panel, the petition for rehearing 

is DENIED. 

In accordance with Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, the suggestion for rehearing en bane was 

transmitted to all the judges of the court in regular active 

service. No member of the panel and no judge in regular active 

service on the court having requested that the court be polled on 

rehearing fill bane, Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appell ate Procedure, 

the suggestion for rehearing en bane is DENIED. 

Entered for the Court 

ROBERT . HOECKER, Clerk 

By ~~:it, Vfekatrick Fisher 

C ief Deputy Clerk 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2077 Document: 010110243066 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 3