- 6 -
“Not Stipulated”, providing no reasons upon which he based his
refusal to admit or stipulate, contrary to the requirements of
Rules 90(c) and 91(f)(2). Mrs. Beck filed no response to
respondent’s request for admissions or to the Court’s Order to
Show Cause pursuant to Rule 91(f).3
On May 4, 1999, the Court granted Dr. Beck’s motion for a
continuance and discharged its Order to Show Cause Under Rule
91(f). In the Court’s notice setting case for trial, dated May
21, 1999, the cases were calendared for trial at the session of
the Court commencing October 25, 1999, in Houston, Texas.
On June 4, 1999, respondent once again filed a motion to
show cause why proposed facts in evidence should not be accepted
pursuant to Rule 91(f). The subject matter of respondent’s Rule
91(f) motion was the facts and evidence set forth in those
paragraphs of respondent’s requested admissions and proposed
stipulations of facts to which Dr. Beck had failed to agree in
his previous responses. On June 7, 1999, the Court granted
respondent’s motion and ordered petitioners to file a response
and show cause, on or before June 28, 1999 (subsequently,
enlarged to July 13, 1999, by Court Order dated June 30, 1999),
why the matters set forth in respondent’s motion papers should
not be deemed admitted for purposes of these proceedings.
3 Consequently, pursuant to Rule 90(c), each matter set
forth in respondent’s requested admissions was deemed admitted as
to Mrs. Beck.
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