# Appendix — Chemical Cleaning, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0992%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1971 - **Citation:** 402 U.S. 945 ## Text la APPENDIX ——— eee U. S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Dow CuHemicaL Co. olay CuemicaL CLEANING, Inc. Order cf Injunction (Number and title omitted) (Filed: December 7, 1961) The above-entitled action having been brought by The Dow Chemical Company for infringements by Chemical Cleaning, Inc., John H. Rusch and George Lewis of United States Letters Patent 2,959,555 and the following having. been stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, by their respective counsel, Ir Is OrnpErED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. That this court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof. 2. That United States Letters Patent 2,959,555, issued November 8, 1960, is valid; and that plaintiff, The Dow Chemical Company, is the lawful owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to said Letters Patent and the inventions thereof and has been such owner thereof since its date of issuance. 3. That defendants, Chemical Cleaning, Inc., John H. Rusch and George Lewis, have infringed said Letters Pat- ent 2,959,555 by using or causing to be used methods of said Letters Patent and by making, causing to be made, using or causing to be used, selling or causing to be sold products of said Letters Patent. 4. That as a result of said infringements by Chemical Cleaning, Inc., John H. Rusch and George Lewis of said 2a Letters Patent, plaintiff, The Dow Chemical Company, has incurred, since the date of issuance of said Letters Patent, damages according to law. 5. That a Writ of Injunction issue out of and under the seal of this court directed to defendants, Chemical Clean- ing, Ine., John H. Rusch and George Lewis, their officers, agents, servants, attorneys, employees, associates and privies and those persons in active concert and partici- pation with them, enjoining and restricting them and each of them from directly or indirectly infringing United States Letters Patent 2,959,555 and from offering or ad- vertising so to do, and from aiding or abetting in any way contributing to the infringement of any of the claims of said Letters Patent. 6. In lieu of an accounting, counsel for the respective parties have agreed upon damages, the payment and re- ceipt of which is acknowledged. s/ J. SKELLY WricHT United States District Judge Datep: December 7th, 1961 Conclusions of Law 1. This Court has statutory authority to grant relief and to award damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and ex- penses, against defendants, for violation of an injunction in a patent infringement case. 35 U.S.C., §§ 283, 284 and 285. 2. In a contempt proceeding for violation of an injunc- tion against infringement, the question is whether the modified composition is equivalent to the original in re- lation to the patent in the suit. Patton v. Stone, (5th Cir., 194°), 178 F. 2d 515, 517; E-I-M- Co. v. Philadelphia Gear Works (5th Cir., 1955), 223 F. 2d 36, 40. dja 3. The validity of the plaintiff’s patent 2,959,555 has been determined between the parties and such issues are res judicata. 4. The modified solution employed by the defendants in their boiler cleaning operations is fully equivalent to the original adjudicated solution in relatiou to the patent in suit, and does the same work and accomplishes substan- tially the same result as thiourea. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 1950, 339 U.S. 605, 608, 609, 70 S. Ct. 854, 94 L. Ed. 1097. 5. The use of Sequestrol 60 by defendants violated the injunction and constituted infringement of plaintiff’s Pat- ent No. 2,959,555. 6. Defendants knowingly and wilfully violated the in- junction order of December 7, 1961, and are guilty of civil contempt. New Orleans, Louisiana, December 30, 1965. s/ Herpert W. CurisTENBERRY United States District Judge Judgment (Numebr and title omitted) (Filed: January 7, 1966) In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made and entered this date, the Court now makes and enters the following Judgment: It is, for cause shown, Orverep, ApsJUDGED AND DEcREED that the said defendants Curmican CLEANING, INc., a cor- poration, Jonn H. Ruscu, individually, and Grorcr LEwIs, individually, are guilty of wilful civil contempt of this Court for having failed and refused to ovey its Final Judgment and Injunction of December 7, 1961. 1. That defendants purge themselves of their contempt of this Court by taking the following action: 4a (a) Fully comply with all of the provisions of the Court’s Final Judgment and Injunction of December 7, 1961; (b) That defendants cease and desist from making, using, selling or offering for sale, in any manner what- soever, said Sequestrol 60, and any other solution sub- stantially equivalent thereto or in any manner whatsoever embodying the inventions disclosed and claimed in said Letters Patent No. 2,959,555, or from infringing upon said patents in any other way, for the respective life of said patent. (c) That defendants pay to plaintiff general damages in the sum of $1,000.00, together with all costs of this prosecution. New Orleans, Louisiana, December 30, 1965. s/ Hersert W. CHRISTEN BERRY United States District Judge IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 23498 CuemicaL CLEANING, Inc., Jonn H. Ruscw and GeorcE Lewis, Appellants-A ppellees, v. Tue Dow CuHemicaL Company, Appellee-Appellant. (And Reverse Title) Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (June 15, 1967) Before Hutcueson, Gewrn and Dyer, Circuit Judges. Hvutcueson, Circuit Judge: This appeal is from a judg- ment of the district court holding Chemical Cleaning, Inc. (CCI) guilty of civil contempt in that it knowingly and oa willfully violated an order which had enjoined it from further infringing a patent held by Dow Chemical. We affirm on the issue of contempt, but remand for a hearing on the issue of damages and costs. On November 8, 1960, Dow obtained Patent No. 2,959,555 (hereafter Patent 555) which claims a chemical process to be used in the cleaning of industrial steam generating boilers. Such boilers accumulate on their metal sides in- crustations of copper and iron oxide. The cleaning of the boilers involves the periodic removal of the incrustations. The cleaning job is made difficult by the fact that the copper, once removed, has a tendency to become rede- posited on the metal surfaces before it ean be flushed from the boiler. Patent 555 avoids that difficulty by the use of thiourea, a urea derivative, which acts as a sequestering agent to hold the copper within the cleaning solution until the whole solution can be flushed out of the boiler. CCI also cleans industrial boilers by use of chemicals. Pursuant to a suit brought by Dow against CCI for in- fringement of Patent 555, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana entered an order on December 7, 1961, that Dow’s patent was valid and had been infringed in that CCI had employed thiourea in its boiler cleaning operations. An injunction was issued against CCI ordering that it refrain from further in- fringements of the patent. CCI then began using another chemical compound, mono- methylolthiourea, which it called Sequestrol 60. Dow filed the instant contempt action alleging that the use of the new solution constituted a violation of the injunction since Sequestrol 60 was merely thiourea to which formaldehyde had been added, and which, when used, disassociated to produce significant amounts of thiourea. The court below found that Sequestrol 60 was indeed the equivalent of thiourea and held CCT in eivil contempt of the injunction. it is the issue of equivalency which we first consider. ba In recognition of the fact that a patent would be vir- tually worthless if it did not protect against devices which incorporate only unimportant variations of the patented device, the doctrine of equivalents provides that a later- developed device will be regarded as the equivalent of the patented device if, although different in form or shape, it ‘*performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result.’’ Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42 (1929). In its early development, the doctrine generally was applied in eases involving the equivalence of devices having me- chanical components. Today, however, the same principles are applied to compositions where there is equivalence between chemical ingredients. Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1955). In Graver, the Supreme Court spoke to the problem of determining what constitutes equivalency: **Consideration must be given to the purpose for which an ingredient is used in a patent, the qualities it has when combined with the other ingredients, and the function which it is intended to perform.’’ ‘<4 finding of equivalence is a determination of fact. Proof can be made in any form: through testimony of experts or others versed in the technology by; docu- ments, ineluding texts and treatises; and, of course, by the disclosure of the prior art. Like any other issue of fact, final determination requires a balancing of credibility, persuasiveness and weight of evidence. It is to be decided by the trial court and that court’s de- cision, under general principles of appellate review, should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneons. Particularly is this so in a field where so much de- pends upon familiarity with specific scientific prob- lems and principles not usually contained in the general storehouse of knowledge and experience.’’ Td, at 609- 610. (emphasis added) 7a The district court sitting without a jury made full and complete findings of fact after considering expert testi- mony and the results of various experiments offered by both parties. Because there is little dispute as to the correctness of these findings, they need not be repeated in specific detail here. A brief summary will suffice. Sequestrol 60 is prepared by compounding thiourea and formaldehyde under alkaline conditions. The process is reversible, and the trial court found that under the boiler treating conditions employed by CCI, Sequestrol 60 dis- associates to produce about 90% by weight of thiourea in the free or uncombined form, and some formaldehyde. The court determined that Sequestrol 60 does the same work, is employed in the same way, and accomplishes the same result as thiourea in functioning as a copper se- questering agent. Sequestrol 60 was held to be the equivalent of the thiourea solution protected by Patent 959. Hence, it was decided that CCI had violated the injunction because it had further infringed Dow’s patent by the use of Sequestrol 60; moreover, the violation was considered deliberate and willful. CCI apparently does not attack the factual findings of the district court, but challenges only the conclusions to be drawn from such findings. CCI contends that the factual finding of equivalency will not support the conclusion of what it terms ‘‘legal equivalency’? because the court er- roneously failed to consider an expired patent, by denying its admission into evidence, which CCI claimed it was practicing. As pointed out in the Graver case, however, a finding of equivalency is a determination of fact. Fur- thermore, proof that CCI was practicing an expired patent should have been adduced at the original infringement proceeding. CCI’s contentions on this point must be re- jected, and we conclude that the district court’s finding of equivalency, which is supported by considerable evi- dence, must be affirmed. = Sa Dow filed a cross-appeal alleging that the district court erred in failing to provide a separate hearing on the issue of damages and costs, including attorneys’ fees, following the decision on the merits. The contempt action was filed by Dow on April 2, 1962, on the basis of CCI’s clean- ing activities at the Riverbend Station of the Duke Light & Power Company. Due to the failure of a court reporter to transcribe the first hearing, a delay of two years oc- curred before a recorded hearing was obtained, since the Riverbend cleaning operation was the only contemptuous activity known to Dow at the time this action was filed, Dow alleged damages of only $1,000 which were awarded it by the district court. Dow claims, however, that CCI had committed other contemptuous acts during the two- year period which the court should have considered, but did not, in its award of damages. Dow says no evidence going tu preve increased damages was presented in the trial court pursuant to an express agreement between Dow’s counsel and the trial court that the issues of lia- yility and damages would be separated. The agreement was as follows: ‘*Your Honor, I would like to clarify one thing, if I could. At the previous hearing it was my understand- ing that we would separate the issues of liability and damages and we would not go into proof of damages at this time. If that is still Your Honor’s intention, Plaintiff rests.’’ ‘*All right’’, answered the judge. We feel that Dow’s counsel was inadvertently lulled into the belief that the issue of damages would be left to be considered separately. Yet damages were awarded without a further hearing for Dow to present its evidence thereon. CCI does not point to any part of the record which shows that this agree- ment subsequently was altered, nor do we have any reason to believe that it was. 9a The judgment holding CCI in civil contempt is af- firmed. The award of $1,000 is reversed, and the case is remanded for a consideration of an award of damages and attorneys’ fees, if any. In view of this disposition of the case, the motion by Dow to dismiss CCI’s appeal is denied. AFFIRMED IN Part; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN Part. July 31, 1967 Per Curiam The petition for rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en bane, Rule 25(a), subpar. (b), the petition for rehearing en banc is denied. Judgment This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel; On ConsmeERATION WHEREOF, It is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said District Court; It is further ordered and adjudged that the appellants- appellees, Chemical Cleaning, Inc., John H. Rusch and George Lewis, be condemned, in solido, to pay the costs of this cause in this Court for which execution may ss issued out of the said District Court. June 15, 1967 Issued as Mandate: Aug. 10, 1967 10a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NEW ORLEANS DIVISION Civil Action No. 11665, Section ‘*B’’ Tue Dow CuemicaL Company, a corporation, versus CHEMICAL CLEANING, INc., a corporation, Joun Hl. Ruscn, Individually & Georce Lewis, Individually. Judgment After Accounting This cause eame on for hearing on a previous day on ob- jections to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, ren- dered by the special master on the statement of the account. The Court, having considered the arguments of counsel, having studied the legal memoranda submitted by both par- ties, and having considered the evidence presented to the special master, accordingly ; It Is OrpvereD, ApsuDGED AND Decreep that this Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this action; It Is FurtHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DecreEeEpD that plain- —/ tiff, The Dow Chemieal Company, recover of defendants Chemieal Cleaning, Ine., John H. Ruseh and George Lewis in solido, the sum of $90,812.41 together with interest there- on at the legal rate from this date until paid. It Is FurtHer Orperep, ApsuDGED AND DecrEeEp that the Master’s fees are hereby fixed at $5,900.00 and said Mas- ter’s fees, and all other costs of this proceeding, be allo- eated between the parties in the proportion of 60% to the defendants and 40% to the plaintiff. Dated at New Orleans, Louisiana this 28th day of July, 1969. /s/ FREDERIK J. R. HEEBE Judge, United States District Court lla IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 28531 TE Dow Cuemicau Company, a corporation, Plaintiff-A ppellee-Cross-A ppellant, versus CuEeMICAL CLEANING, INc., a corporation, Joan H Rvscu, Individually, and Grorcr Lewis, Individually, Defendants-A ppellants-Cross-A ppellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (November 6, 1970) Before Gew1n, GotpBerc and Sim PSON, Circuit Judges. Smupsox, Cireuit Judge: The appellant Chemical Cleaning, Incorporated (CC1) was adjudged in the district court to have been guilty of willful and knowing violation of an injunctive order of the district court prohibiting it from further infringement of a Dow Chemical Company (Dow) patent relating to the process of acid chemical cleaning of utility boilers. In an opinion reported at 379 F.2d 294 we affirmed the district court and remanded for consideration of the questions of damages and attorney’s fees. On remand the court below referred these matters to a Special Master for recommendations, The Special Master’s report was adopted without variance. Damages and attorney’s fees were awarded to Dow in the 12a amount of $90,812.41 together with interest. We consider an appeal by CCI and a cross-appeal by Dow based upon objections to the findings and awards as set forth in the report of the Special Master and as adopted by the trial court. We diseern no reversible error in the record and affirm as to both appeals. CCL first complains that the district court erred in awarding $23,769.57 as the profit which Dow would have earned on the boiler cleaning operations which CCI conducted in violation of the court order against infringe- ment. The erux of this charge is that the Dow patent covered only one step in the two-step boiler cleaning opera- tions, and therefore Dow is entitled to damages for only those profits it would“have received from completion of the one step. The argument is that the damages should be apportioned as to each step in the proeess, and awarded as to the infringing step only. The distriet court found by its Finding of Fact No. 5 that the boiler cleaning operation was in fact a two-step process, and that the first step in the process did not involve the use of Dow’s patent. However, the court further found that the two stages were interrelated and that CCI could not have performed the non-infringing first step without also performir the infringing second stage. (Finding of Fact No. 13). «his critical finding was based on evidence that in every instance the bid specifications required that the patented cleaning method be performed alone or in combination with another stage, and that in those cases where two stages were specified, the bid would not have been awarded to a bidder unable to perform both stages. It follows of course that if CCI had violated the injunction, Dow would have received the entire bid. Apart from a bald unsupported statement that the district court findings and award were incorrect, CCI fails to point out anything in the evidence upon which we can base a deter- mination that the finding below was clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P. We are far from ‘‘convinced that 13a a mistake has been made’’. McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed.2d 20 (1954). The district court doubled the award of damages to Dow for lost profits because of the ‘knowing and willful violation by [CCI] of the writ of injunetion’”’. CCI on this appeal would relitigate the question of the knowing and willful nature of the violation. That matter was determined in the previous litigation before this Court and is clearly res judicata here. Our consideration is confined to the propriety of double damages where it has been established that the violation of the injunction was ‘‘knowing and willful’’. CCI argues that Title 35, U.S.C., Section 2841 as illuminated in Carter Products, Incorporated v. Colgate- Palmolive Company, 214 f.Supp. 383 (D. Md. 1963), establishes a principle that in patent infringement cases the district court may award exemplary damages only where the infringement is ‘‘conscious and deliberate’. Assuming arguendo that CCI’s theory is correctly applied here, we view ‘‘conscious and deliberate’? as the sub- stantially exact equivalent of our language on the prior appeal, 379 F.2d 294 at 297, approving the lower court’s determination that CCI’s violation of the injunction was ‘‘deliberate and willful’’. The two terms obviously and 1**$ 284. Damages Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. ‘““When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the dam- ages up to three times the amount found or assessed. ‘The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the de- termination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances. July 19, 1952, c. 950, § 1, 66 Stat. 813.”’ lta interchangeably refer to the element of scienter. Thus even accepting CCI’s argument, it is clear that the court had the power to award double damages. Baltz v. Walgreen Company, 198 F.Supp. 22, 27 (W.D. Tenn. 1961) ; Title 35, U.S.C., $284, footnote 1, supra. But CCL’s argument fails to recognize that this is a civil contempt proceeding, not a patent infringement suit. The patent infringement was established in the previous round of litigation; we here determine the appropriateness of damages, compensatory and exemplary, for willful violation of a court order. Siebring v. Hansen, 8 Cir, 1965, 346 F.2d 474, 480; Textag Company v. Hayslip, 5 Cir. 1951, 192 F.2d 485, 488. In dealing with a civil contempt proceeding the district court was not bound by the pro- visions of Title 35, U.S.C., $284. Rather it was free to exercise the inherent diseretion possessed by a court to correct willful violations of its solemnly passed orders.* CCI’s confusion over the distinction between patent cases and contempt of court cases carries over into the area of attorney’s fees and other expenses. CCI urges that the district court erred in awarding Dow $24,371.05 in attorney’s fees, $5,917.77 for attorney’s expenses and $12,984.85 for salary costs for several Dow employees involved in the investigation by Dow. CCI argues that attorney’s fees and other expenses may only be awarded in patent cases in accordance with statutes enacted by Congress. Title 35, U.S.C., § 285 provides: ‘*The Court in exceptional cases may award reason- able attorney fees to the prevailing party’’. * Additionally, while not involved here, Title 18, U.S.C., § 401 gives courts of the United States power to punish by fine or im- prisonment at its discretion (‘e282 2 & (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.’’ lda The court found that the facts of this case did not qualify it as an ‘‘exceptional’’ case. (Finding of Fact No. 27). We iterate that this is not a patent infringement case— it is a civil contempt proceeding. There are contempt cases in abundant number holding that a court has discretion to ward reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses necessary to make an innocent party whole. Broadview Chemical Corporation vy. Loctite Corporation, 159 U.S.P.Q. SO (D. Conn, 1968), affirmed 2 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 538, cert. denied 394 U.S. 976 (1969) ; Mead Johnson &€ Company v. Baby’s Formula Service, Incorporated, 5 Cir, 1968, 402 F.2d 23; Chas. Pfizer & Co. v. Davis Edwards Pharmacal Corp., 2 Cir. 1967, 3885 F.2d 533, 5388; Siebring v. Hansen, supra; Western Lighting Corp. v. Smoot-Holman Co., 9 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 1019, 1022; Universal Match Corp. v. New Castle Prods., Inc., 7 Cir. 1962, 308 F.2d 842; Sunbeam Corp. v. Golden Rule Appliance Co., 2 Cir. 1958, 252 F.2d 467: Carter Prods., Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., supra; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Sun Vacuum Stores, Inc., 192 F.Supp. 738, 742 (D.N.J. 1961); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Neisner Bros., Inc., 122 F.Supp. 752, 755 (N.D. Ill. 1954). Dow’s cross-appeal also involves the court’s award of attorney’s fees. Dow paid approximately $78,000 in attorney’s fees of which $48,744.11 was found to be ineurred in preparation and support of the motion to show cause why CCI should not be held in contempt prior to the beginning of the accounting proceedings before the Special Master in February of 1968. Of the remainder, $25,110.00 was for attorney’s fees charged during the accounting. Although the court found the attorney’s fees to be reasonable, it also found that $48,744.11 was excessive in comparison to the amount of damages suffered by Dow, and therefore limited recovery of attorney’s fees to one- half that amount. No damages were awarded for attorney’s fees incurred during the accounting. The district court apparently concluded that the bid specifications sufficiently informed Dow of the approx- 16a imate damages, and that knowing this Dow proceeded nonetheless to bind itself for inordinately high legal expenses. It is also shown that Dow incurred substantial expenses in an unsuccessful attempt to establish a damage figure of $87,200.00 based on an incremental lost profit theory, as opposed to the $23,769.11 figure computed on the basis of actual net profit lost by Dow. Dow counters by arguing that the legal fees would have been much less but for the uncooperative and contrary attitude which CCI took toward the litigation. These are all warmed over versions of the arguments advanced by the parties to the Special Master and the district court. They represent matters in substantial conflict as to which the experienced trial judge has exercised his discretion. No abuse of that discretion is made manifest to us, and we affirm as to Dow’s cross- appeal as well as to CCI’s original appeal. AFFIRMED. 17a IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 28531 Tne Dow Cuemica Company, a corporation, Plaintiff-A ppellee-Cross-A ppellant, versus CueMIcaL CLEANING, INc., a corporation, Joun H. Ruscnu, Individually, and Grorce Lewis, Individually, Defendants-A ppellants-Cross-A ppellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion Nov. 6, 1970, 5 Cir., 1970, —— F.2d ——). (December 17, 1970) Before Gewin, GotpBerc and Simpson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: The Petition for Rehearing is Dentep and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en bane, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Bane is Deniep. 18a UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October Term, 1969 No. 28531 D. C. Docket No. C.A. 11,665, Div. ‘‘B”’ Tue Dow CuemicaL Company, a corporation, Plaintiff-A ppellee-Cross-A ppellant, versus Cnemicat CLEANING, INc., a corporation, Joun H. Ruscn, Individually, and Gzorcr Lewis, Individually, Defendants-A ppellants-Cross-A ppellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Before Gewrn, GoLpBERG and Simpson, Circuit Judges. Judgment This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the United States Distriet Court for the East- ern District of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel; On ConstDERATION Wuereor, It is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said Dis- trict Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. It is fvrther ordered that defendants-appellants-cross- appellees pay to plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, the costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court. November 6, 1970 Issued as Mandate: Dec. 28, 1970 . 19a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Minute Entry, June 19, 1963, Christenberry, J. Division A No. 11665 Civil Action THe Dow CHemicaL Company Vv. CHEMICAL CLEANING, INC., ET AL. This cause came on this day for hearing on motion of defendants to dismiss order to show cause and plaintiff’s motion for contempt judgment; and motion of defendants to stay request for admissions. Present: Charles Merriam, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Ted Rantes, Esa, Attorney for Defendants Argument. Ir Is OrvErep that motion of defendants to dismiss order to show cause and plaintiff’s motion for contempt judg- ment be, and the same is hereby, Dentep. Ir Is Furtuer Orperep that motion of Defendants to stay request for admission be, and the same is hereby, Dentep, and defendants have 20 days to answer requests for admissions. June 21, 1963 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0992%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.