- 28 -
granted the motion for leave and had filed in these cases peti-
tioners’ motion for reconsideration. On July 2, 2002, petition-
ers filed in these cases petitioners’ motion to reopen the record
(petitioners’ motion to reopen the record).9
On July 24, 2002, respondent filed a response to the Trust’s
motion to vacate in each of the cases at docket Nos. 9999-00 and
10000-00, to Ms. Herbst’s motion to vacate in the case at docket
No. 10001-00, and to Mr. Herbst’s motion to vacate in the case at
docket No. 10002-00.10
9The Court is issuing an Order in these cases addressing
petitioners’ motion to reopen the record.
10Respondent did not file a response to petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration or a response to petitioners’ motion to
reopen the record. That was because, in an Order dated July 2,
2002 (July 2, 2002 Order), the Court indicated that the conten-
tions and arguments advanced in each of the Trust’s motions to
vacate, Ms. Herbst’s and Mr. Herbst’s motions to vacate appeared
to be essentially the same as the contentions and arguments
advanced in petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and petition-
ers’ motion to reopen the record. The Court further indicated in
the July 2, 2002 Order that it appeared that any response by
respondent to petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and respon-
dent’s response to petitioners’ motion to reopen the record would
be essentially the same as respondent’s response to each of the
Trust’s motions to vacate, Ms. Herbst’s motion to vacate, and Mr.
Herbst’s motion to vacate. Consequently, in the Court’s July 2,
2002 Order, the Court directed respondent to file a response to
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and a response to peti-
tioners’ motion to reopen the record only if respondent believed
that it was necessary to file each such response. Obviously,
respondent did not believe that it was necessary to file any
responses to those motions.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011