Morgan Equipment Co. v. Novokrivorogsky State Ore Mining & Processing Enterprise

Good Law
57 F. Supp. 2d 863·1998 WL 1077265·1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22184
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 13, 1998C 94-1231 CWCalifornia5,682 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wilken, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RULE 60(B)(4) MOTION

Defendant Krivoy Rog State Mining-Metallurgical Factory, successor-in-interest to Novokrivorogsky State Ore Mining and Processing Enterprise, (the Mine) moves, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed.R.Civ. P.), for relief from judgment. Plaintiff Morgan Equipment Company (Morgan) opposes the motion. The matter was heard on September 25, 1998. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties and oral argument on the motion, the Court grants Defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Morgan is a California-based, American corporation engaged in the distribution of construction and mining equipment, supplies, and parts. The Mine is a Ukrainian mining corporation, which is more than fifty percent state-owned and centered in Krivoy Rog, Ukraine.

This case arises out of a series of contracts between Morgan and the Mine. After Harold Morgan, President of Morgan, and Oleg Vasieleyvich Khrapko, General Secretary of the Mine, met in London in 1992, the parties entered into a barter contract later that year. Kerry Donahoe, Morgan’s Vice-President, traveled to Kri-voy Rog, Ukraine, where he and Khrapko negotiated and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.