- 24 -
Herbst I that it did not have jurisdiction over the cases at
docket Nos. 9999-00 and 10000-00.
Pursuant to Herbst I, on March 28, 2002, the Court entered
an Order of Dismissal in each of those cases in which the Court
dismissed each such case for lack of jurisdiction.7
In Herbst I, the Court further found that (1) neither Ms.
Herbst nor any authorized representative of Ms. Herbst and
(2) neither Mr. Herbst nor any authorized representative of Mr.
Herbst appeared on October 15, 2001, at the calendar call at the
Court’s Cleveland trial session or at the trial that the Court
held in these cases. The Court also found in Herbst I that the
respective written responses by Ms. Herbst and Mr. Herbst to
respondent’s motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution in the
cases at docket Nos. 10001-00 and 10002-00 did not contain any
valid reason why the Court should not dismiss those cases for
lack of prosecution. The Court observed in Herbst I that those
respective responses contained contentions and arguments that the
Court had found in the Court’s respective January 18, 2002 Orders
in the cases at docket Nos. 10001-00 and 10002-00 to be frivolous
and/or groundless. The Court also found in Herbst I that,
despite the Court’s admonitions in those Orders about (1) the
frivolous and/or groundless contentions and arguments in Ms.
7Because we dismissed the cases at docket Nos. 9999-00 and
10000-00 for lack of jurisdiction, we denied respondent’s motion
to hold petitioners in default in each of those cases.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011