- 5 -
Respondent subsequently served on petitioners requests for
admission pursuant to Rule 90. Having received no response after
more than 2 months, respondent then filed a motion for summary
judgment and included with the motion revised computations of the
deficiency for 1997, in conformity with the above-mentioned
concessions. The Court in due course ordered petitioners to
respond to respondent’s motion.
Petitioners timely submitted their opposition to the motion
for summary judgment. The Court at the same time also received
from petitioners a response to respondent’s requests for
admission. By order, the Court declared withdrawn and set aside
any deemed admissions made by petitioners by reason of Rule 90(c)
and granted leave for the filing of petitioners’ response. In
their response, petitioners admitted certain items primarily of a
formal or administrative nature, denied several other points with
very brief explanations, and denied the remainder (constituting
the majority of the requested admissions) with no explanation.
Petitioners failed to attend a hearing thereafter scheduled
by the Court, and, although Mr. Judge attempted to participate,
his appearance was not permitted since he had been suspended from
practice before this Court.
The Court and counsel for respondent addressed the status of
the pending motion for summary judgment. The Court observed that
petitioners had not “done anything like cooperating * * * or
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