LEGAL NEWS --- 2-13-2019
There was a bit of legal news today, 13 February. Judge Richard Gergel, of the United States District Court, in Charleston, amended the scheduling order in the case of vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. He changed the date of a possible trial from March 1, 2019, or after, to May 1, 2019, or after.
No explanation was given for setting the new date. There could possibly be several reasons for the change. For one, it could mean that Gergel is giving himself more time to issue a ruling. This would settle the matter without a trial. Both sides have petitioned him to render a judgment directly, that is, without going through a formal trial. He may be preparing to issue a judgment in the next couple of months. Or, it could possibly mean he is giving the lawyers on both sides more time to prepare for a courtroom trial, over which he will preside, to some time after May 1st. As I understand it, this case could proceed until the judge grants a petition on his own, or is resolved in a formal courtroom trial.
No explanation was given for setting the new date. There could possibly be several reasons for the change. For one, it could mean that Gergel is giving himself more time to issue a ruling. This would settle the matter without a trial. Both sides have petitioned him to render a judgment directly, that is, without going through a formal trial. He may be preparing to issue a judgment in the next couple of months. Or, it could possibly mean he is giving the lawyers on both sides more time to prepare for a courtroom trial, over which he will preside, to some time after May 1st. As I understand it, this case could proceed until the judge grants a petition on his own, or is resolved in a formal courtroom trial.
The case is based on the Lanham Act that protects federally registered trademarks from infringement. The Episcopal Church bishops, Charles vonRosenberg and "Skip" Adams, are charging that Mark Lawrence is in violation of the Act as he is pretending to be the Episcopal bishop even though he left the Episcopal Church in October of 2012. In essence, the suit is to have the federal court recognize the Episcopal Church diocese as the legal heir of the pre-schism diocese. This would return to the Church the names, marks, symbols, and assets of the diocese as they existed before October 15, 2012. The defendant, Mark Lawrence, the bishop of the breakaway diocese, is asserting that the pre-schism diocese legally seceded from the Episcopal Church and he remains the lawful bishop of the diocese which still uses the pre-schism names. His diocese is presently in possession of the names, marks, symbols, and assets of the old diocese. Although the majority of the South Carolina Supreme Court justices opined that the Episcopal Church diocese was the legal heir of the old diocese, they left it to the federal court to wrap up this issue.
The federal case should not be confused with the state case. The federal case deals with the entity of the diocese. The state case deals with the local properties of the parishes. The state supreme court has ruled that 29 of the 36 in question, plus Camp St. Christopher, are legally under the Episcopal Church. Judge Edgar Dickson is the circuit court judge in charge of implementing the decision. We are awaiting his action. He received the case thirteen months ago and has rendered no decision even though he has collected voluminous written and oral arguments from the lawyers on both sides.
There is reason to hope that both judges will reach decisions within the next few months.
The federal case should not be confused with the state case. The federal case deals with the entity of the diocese. The state case deals with the local properties of the parishes. The state supreme court has ruled that 29 of the 36 in question, plus Camp St. Christopher, are legally under the Episcopal Church. Judge Edgar Dickson is the circuit court judge in charge of implementing the decision. We are awaiting his action. He received the case thirteen months ago and has rendered no decision even though he has collected voluminous written and oral arguments from the lawyers on both sides.
There is reason to hope that both judges will reach decisions within the next few months.
