- 16 -
proceeding at docket No. 9702-00. We further find on that record
that the case at docket No. 9702-00 was not brought by and with
the full descriptive name of the fiduciary entitled to institute
a case on behalf of Criss Trust, as required by Rule 60(a)(1).
On the record before us, we conclude that we do not have juris-
diction over the case at docket No. 9702-00. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss that case for lack of jurisdiction.12
Ms. Criss and Mr. Criss
Neither Ms. Criss nor any authorized representative of Ms.
Criss appeared at the Court’s Cleveland trial session on October
15, 2001, at the call of these consolidated cases from the
Court’s trial calendar. Neither Mr. Criss nor any authorized
representative of Mr. Criss appeared at that calendar call.
At the trial held by the Court in the case at docket No.
9700-00, neither Ms. Criss nor any authorized representative of
Ms. Criss appeared. At the trial held by the Court in the case
at docket No. 9701-00, neither Mr. Criss nor any authorized
representative of Mr. Criss appeared.
The respective written responses by Ms. Criss and Mr. Criss
to respondent’s respective motions to dismiss for lack of prose-
cution and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in the cases at
12Because we shall dismiss the case at docket No. 9702-00
for lack of jurisdiction, we shall deny respondent’s written
motion filed on Nov. 13, 2001, to hold Criss Trust in default in
that case.
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