- 8 -
occasion of his unwillingness to engage in a conference call.5
The Court further reiterated that it would not be inclined to
grant any further continuances. On June 23 and 28, 1995, the
Court issued orders respectively relating to respondent's motion
to show cause why proposed facts and evidence should not be
accepted as established, Rule 91(f), and respondent's motion in
limine. The Court had previously issued an order sanctioning
petitioner for failure to respond to respondent's discovery. The
Court also deemed certain facts and evidence stipulated based on
the record.
On July 24, 1995, a week before the scheduled trial,
petitioner filed a motion to continue. Petitioner asserted that
he continued to suffer from dizziness. The Court denied the
motion to continue on July 26, 1995, and conducted a conference
call with the parties. Petitioner advised that he would not
appear at the trial scheduled for July 31, 1995. Respondent
advised that she would appear and present her case with respect
to those matters on which she had the burden of proof. The Court
advised petitioner that the trial would proceed on July 31, 1995,
and that his failure to appear or his failure to have counsel
appear could have adverse consequences.
5 The Court sought to schedule conference calls to obtain
updates on petitioner's medical condition and coordinate the
scheduling of hearings and the trial.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011