![cerberus pro ul listings cerberus pro ul listings](https://mangools.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SEOsitecheckup-tool.png)
On February 23, 1982, Baker filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County, seeking an injunction restraining Cerberus from declaring a breach of the licensing agreement or from terminating the agreement until the arbitration proceeding demanded by Baker was concluded. Baker also sought to restrain Cerberus permanently from terminating the agreement because of a violation of Article VI(B) as long as Baker did not alter the DI-3. Baker claimed that Cerberus was wrongfully asserting a breach of both Article VI(B) and the marking requirements of Article II(D) of the agreement, id., and sought a determination that it had complied with Articles II(D) and VI(B) of the agreement in manufacturing, marking and selling its DI-3 detector, or, alternatively, that it should be permitted sixty days to conform with Article VI(B) should any breach of that provision be found. A to Baker's Response to Cerberus's Objections to the Report of Mr.
CERBERUS PRO UL LISTINGS LICENSE
On February 22, 1982, Baker filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association asserting that Cerberus had "wrongfully and in bad faith" declared a breach of the licensing agreement for the purpose of abrogating the exclusive license given to Baker. Complaint, ¶ 21 Amended answer, ¶ 21 Counterclaim, ¶ 32. Cerberus indicated that it would not consent to the manufacture of the DI-3 by Baker since the device was technically unsound and would impair the nature and quality of the detector device. In December 1981, Cerberus sent Baker a telex stating that Baker's manufacture of the "DI-3" ionization detector violated Article VI(B) of the agreement, since Baker had not obtained Cerberus's consent to manufacture the device. Article XV(C) of the agreement provides for arbitration of "ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to" the agreement and provides that judgment on the arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. On April 1, 1973, Cerberus entered into an agreement with Baker under which Cerberus granted Baker an exclusive twenty-year license to make, use and sell detector devices using Cerberus's patents in the United States, Canada and Mexico. In order to effectuate fully the policies of § 1927, Cerberus shall be enjoined from indemnifying Cravath for these expenses.ĭefendant Cerberus owns certain patent rights relating to the manufacture of ionization smoke detectors. We also find that the objections filed by Cravath on behalf of Cerberus to the entry of a judgment, except to the extent that they contend that the master has exceeded the scope of the reference, have unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings, warranting the *1239 assessment against Cravath of Baker's expenses in responding to the objections. We will therefore enter a judgment incorporating the master's findings and conclusions. § 1927 for an order assessing its counsel fees, costs and expenses against Cerberus's counsel, Cravath, Swaine & Moore (Cravath), on the ground that Cerberus's objections to the Master's report and its opposition to the entry of a judgment based on the findings and conclusions in the report have unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.įor the reasons which follow, we find that the Master did not exceed the scope of his reference, that his findings of fact and conclusions of law are unreviewable on the merits by this or any other court, and that the proceedings before him in no way violated the right of Cerberus to the due process of law. Baker has also moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Cerberus opposes the motion, contending that the master exceeded the scope of his reference by deciding issues not raised in the arbitration, made numerous legal errors which the Court is bound to correct despite the parties' stipulation that the Master's decision would be unreviewable by this or any other Court, and conducted hearings in a manner which violated Cerberus's right to the due process of law.
![cerberus pro ul listings cerberus pro ul listings](https://s3.manualzz.com/store/data/033418635_1-99dbc68a1e16c9cd517fe85e511a5031.png)
Moser, who was appointed with the consent of Baker and defendant Cerberus, Limited (Cerberus) to decide finally and conclusively all matters raised in an arbitration involving the parties.
![cerberus pro ul listings cerberus pro ul listings](https://docplayer.net/docs-images/47/20392954/images/page_8.jpg)
(Baker) moves the Court to enter a judgment incorporating the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Special Master Richard G. Rosenbaum, Newark, N.J., for plaintiff.Ĭravath, Swaine & Moore by John E. *1238 Budd, Larner, Kent, Gross, Picillo & Rosenbaum by Michael M.