Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01333/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01333-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 

AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DUST WBS-PAN (JFM) IN K. ADLER, an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RELYNET, INC., a California Corporation, 

MICHAEL DICARLO, an individual, 

INTERNET BRAND, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, INTERMEDIA OUTDOORS, 

INC., a Delaware corporation, VORTEX 

MEDIA GROUP, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusively, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________

RELYNET, INC., a California Corporation, 

MICHAEL DICARLO, an individual, and 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusively, 

 Counterclaimants, 

vs. 

DUSTIN K. ADLER, an individual, 

 Counterdefendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

Case No. 2:08-CV-01333-JAM-EFB 

ORDER DENYING RELYNET, INC.'S 

AND MICHAEL DICARLO'S MOTION 

FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF 

LAW (F.R.C.P. 50) AND, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NEW 

TRIAL (F.R.C.P. 59) 

Date: April 7, 2010 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Courtroom: 6 

Honorable John A. Mendez 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-01333-JAM-EFB Document 296 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 

AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

-1-

Defendants' RelyNet, Inc.'s and Michael DiCarlo's motion for judgment as a matter of law 

(F.R.C.P. 50(b)) and, in the alternative, motion for new trial (F.R.C.P. 59) came on for hearing on 

April 7, 2010 on this Court's 9:30 calendar. The Court has considered the evidence admitted at trial, 

and the jury verdict rendered. It has also considered the underlying briefs and oral argument of 

counsel and now rules as follows: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law 

(F.R.C.P. 50(b)) and, in the alternative, motion for new trial (F.R.C.P. 59) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 8, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez__________________

 JOHN A. MENDEZ 

 Judge of the United States District Court 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-01333-JAM-EFB Document 296 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2