Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jack Nilsson, et al. v. Architron Systems

September 30, 2011

JACK NILSSON, ET AL. APPELLEES
v.
ARCHITRON SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL. APPELLANTS



APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 08-CIV-0866

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Moore, Judge.

Cite as Nilsson v. Architron Sys., Inc.,

ss:

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶1} Appellants, Architron Systems, Inc, et al., appeal from the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Appellee, Jack Nilsson, assigned certain patents to Appellants, Architron Systems, Inc., WiFi Plus, Inc., XRF Technologies Group, Inc., Allen Higgins and Byron Del Castillo. Appellants, however, failed to pay Nilsson for the assignment. On May 2, 2008, Nilsson filed suit for rescission of the patent assignment agreement. A jury trial began on November 23, 2009. On November 24, 2009, the parties settled the case and the terms of the settlement were put on the record in open court.

{¶3} Settlement documents were prepared by Nilsson and sent to Appellants. They did not respond. On January 29, 2010, Nilsson filed a motion for status conference due to Appellants' failure or refusal to consummate settlement. The motion requested that the trial court schedule a status conference and require Appellants to appear and explain their failure to execute the settlement documents. On February 2, 2010, the trial court granted the motion, and the trial court ordered a status conference for March 10, 2010. Appellants failed to appear or offer testimony. The trial court, in accordance with Loc.R. 11, invited Nilsson to submit a proposed journal entry.

{¶4} The proposed entry was submitted on March 11, 2010. Appellants filed objections on March 16, 2010. On March 19, 2010, Nilsson responded to the objections. On May 12, 2010, the trial court issued a judgment entry which found that the settlement documents proposed by Nilsson accurately reflected the settlement agreement that had been placed on the record in open court. Accordingly, the trial court directed the parties to execute the settlement documents no later than May 17, 2010.

{¶5} Appellants refused to sign the settlement documents. On June 4, 2010, Nilsson filed a motion for an order to show cause why sanctions should not issue against Appellants based on their failure to comply with the May 12, 2010 judgment entry. Nilsson requested an order pursuant to Civ.R. 70 appointing an individual to sign the settlement documents on behalf of Appellants. On June 30, 2010, the trial court granted the show cause order and appointed a local attorney to execute the settlement documents on behalf of Appellants. On July 7, 2010, Appellants moved for a stay of the trial court's decision, which was subsequently denied.

{¶6} Nilsson maintains that the settlement documents were executed on July 2, 2010, and that the patent assignments were transferred, rendering this appeal moot. However, there is no evidence in the record to support this contention. Notably, neither the alleged executed settlement documents, nor the patent assignment transfers, were submitted to this Court. On June 11, 2010, Appellants filed a notice of appeal from the May 12, 2010 judgment entry. They raise two assignments of error for our review. We will address them out of order to facilitate our review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY FAILING TO ORDER INTO EFFECT THE SETTLEMENT TERMS, AND ONLY THE SETTLEMENT TERMS, AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES AND PLACED ON ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.