- 4 -
The Court ordered each petitioner to respond to counsel’s motion
by February 10, 1999, and served a copy of such order on each
petitioner by certified mail. The copy of the order sent to Ms.
Luca was returned with the envelope marked “Undeliverable as
Addressed. Forwarding Order Expired”.5
Mr. Luca responded to the Court’s order by letter dated
January 21, 1999, in which he informed the Court that he was no
longer married to Ms. Luca and that he had no one to assist him
in locating the documents necessary to substantiate the disputed
deductions. Mr. Luca requested that the case be postponed until
he was released from prison and was in a position to obtain his
business records. Accordingly, we treated Mr. Luca’s response as
a motion for continuance.6
By order of February 26, 1999, the Court denied counsel’s
motion to withdraw without prejudice and granted Mr. Luca’s
motion for continuance insofar as the trial was stricken from the
April 19, 1999, trial calendar. The order further required Mr.
5 This copy was sent to the Scottsdale, Arizona, address
listed for Ms. Luca on the petition.
6 Respondent filed a response to Mr. Luca’s motion for
continuance, in which respondent stated that he had no objection
to the motion but requested the Court order Mr. Luca to (1)
“diligently undertake all steps that he can reasonably pursue,
given his incarceration, to secure the documents by March 31,
1999;” (2) keep respondent informed of his efforts; (3) provide
any documents obtained to respondent for review; and (4) provide
a status report to the Court every 4 months until the matter is
resolved.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011