LAVELLE; HARVEST WAVE ENERGY; WAVESWING AMERICA, aka AWS Ocean Energy; STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; MUHAMMAD HAJI; LEE FINGERSH;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for Ernest Moniz, Alison LaBonte, Jose Zajas, Pamela Brodie, and Gary Nowakowkski Defendants - Appellees

Case: 24-1420 Document: 49-1 Filed: 09/17/2024 Page: 2 Case 2:23-cv-10643-MAG-DRG ECF No. 155, PageID.2968 Filed 09/17/24 Page 2 of 4 (2 of 4) Upon consideration of the appellant's motion to reinstate the case, And it appearing that the default which led to dismissal of the appeal has been cured, It is ORDERED that the motion be and it hereby is GRANTED.

U.S. Mail Notice of Docket Activity The following transaction was filed on 09/17/2024.

The following documents(s) are associated with this transaction: Document Description: Order Notice will be sent to: Mike Morrow 3175 Azelea Drive, S. Salem, OR 97302 George Sachs 1845 Woodland Avenue Sylvan Lake, MI 48320 A copy of this notice will be issued to: Mr. Anthony A. Agosta Mr. Richard William Arnholt Ms. Laura C. Baucus Mr. Gabriel E. Bedoya Mr. John Adam Behrendt Mr. Bradley H. Darling Ms. Rian Dawson Ms. Josephine A. DeLorenzo Mr. Joseph Anthony Doerr Ms. Kinikia D. Essix Mr. Jonathan B. Frank Mr. Brian R. Iverson Mr. Thomas L. Kent Mr. Donald Joseph Koehler II Mr. Jeffrey S. Love Ms. Melissa Benton Moore

Appellant having previously been advised that failure to satisfy certain specified obligations would result in dismissal of the case for want of prosecution and it appearing that the appellant has failed to satisfy the following obligation(s): The Appellant’s Brief was not filed by June 25, 2024.

ENTERED PURSUANT TO RULE 45(a),

U.S. Mail Notice of Docket Activity The following transaction was filed on 07/12/2024.

Case Name: George Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., et al Case Number: 24-1420 Docket Text: ORDER filed to dismiss for want of prosecution for failure to file the appellant brief.

The following documents(s) are associated with this transaction: Document Description: Order Notice will be sent to: Mike Morrow 3175 Azelea Drive, S. Salem, OR 97302 George Sachs 1845 Woodland Avenue Sylvan Lake, MI 48320 A copy of this notice will be issued to: Mr. Anthony A. Agosta Mr. Richard William Arnholt Ms. Laura C. Baucus Mr. Gabriel E. Bedoya Mr. John Adam Behrendt Mr. Bradley H. Darling Ms. Rian Dawson Ms. Josephine A. DeLorenzo Mr. Joseph Anthony Doerr Ms. Kinikia D. Essix Mr. Jonathan B. Frank Mr. Brian R. Iverson Mr. Thomas L. Kent Mr. Donald Joseph Koehler II Mr. Jeffrey S. Love Ms. Melissa Benton Moore

This appeal being duplicative of Case No. 24-1420, it is hereby DISMISSED.

U.S. Mail Notice of Docket Activity The following transaction was filed on 05/31/2024.

Case Name: George Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., et al Case Number: 24-1468 Docket Text: ORDER filed to dismiss as a duplicate appeal of case number 24-1420.

The following documents(s) are associated with this transaction: Document Description: Order Notice will be sent to: Mike Morrow 3175 Azelea Drive, S. Salem, OR 97302 George Sachs 1845 Woodland Avenue Sylvan Lake, MI 48320 A copy of this notice will be issued to: Mr. Anthony A. Agosta Mr. Richard William Arnholt Ms. Laura C. Baucus Mr. Gabriel E. Bedoya Mr. John Adam Behrendt Mr. Bradley H. Darling Ms. Rian Dawson Ms. Josephine A. DeLorenzo Mr. Joseph Anthony Doerr Ms. Kinikia D. Essix Mr. James M. Fishman Mr. Jonathan B. Frank Mr. Jeffrey F. Gersh Mr. John Michael Huget Mr. Brian R. Iverson Mr. Thomas L. Kent

Case 2:23-cv-10643-MAG-DRG ECF No. 153, PageID.2963 Filed 05/31/24 Page 3 of 3 Case: 24-1468 Document: 3-2 Filed: 05/31/2024 Page: 2 (3 of 3) Mr. Donald Joseph Koehler II Mr. Jeffrey S. Love Ms. Melissa Benton Moore Mr. Matthew Reinhardt Mr. Matthew J. Stanczyk Mr. Brian C. Summerfield

Judgment is entered in accordance with the opinions and orders entered on March 1, 2024

and April 10, 2024.

All claims are dismissed with prejudice.

The case is closed.

The Court noted that its analysis was likely applicable to all Defendants, including those who had not filed a dispositive motion raising statute of limitations arguments.

The Court allowed Sachs 14 days to file a brief explaining why the case should not be dismissed as to non-moving Defendants.

Instead, the brief reiterates arguments Sachs raised earlier in the case that are unrelated to statute of limitations issues.

The Court’s statute of limitations analysis applies to all Defendants, and Sachs offered no meaningful argument to the contrary.

It would be a needless waste of judicial and litigant resources to require non-moving Defendants to file motions raising statute of limitations arguments that are identical to those addressed by the Court’s March 1, 2024 opinion.

The Court noted that its analysis was likely applicable to all Defendants, including those who had not filed a dispositive motion raising statute of limitations arguments.

The Court allowed Sachs 14 days to file a brief explaining why the case should not be dismissed as to non-moving Defendants.

Instead, the brief reiterates arguments Sachs raised earlier in the case that are unrelated to statute of limitations issues.

The Court’s statute of limitations analysis applies to all Defendants, and Sachs offered no meaningful argument to the contrary.

It would be a needless waste of judicial and litigant resources to require non-moving Defendants to file motions raising statute of limitations arguments that are identical to those addressed by the Court’s March 1, 2024 opinion.