- 23 -
docket No. 10764-00 and Richards Charitable Trust in the case at
docket No. 10767-00 had failed to establish who has the authority
to act on their behalf in those respective proceedings and
(2) that neither of those cases was brought by and with the full
descriptive name of the fiduciary entitled to institute each such
case on behalf of Richards Management Trust or Richards Charita-
ble Trust, as the case may be, as required by Rule 60(a)(1). The
Court held in Richards I that it did not have jurisdiction over
the cases at docket Nos. 10764-00 and 10767-00.
Pursuant to Richards 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.8
In Richards I, the Court further found that neither Mr.
Richards nor any authorized representative of Mr. Richards
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 Richards I that the written
response by Mr. Richards to respondent’s motion to dismiss for
lack of prosecution in the case at docket No. 10766-00 did not
contain any valid reason why the Court should not dismiss the
8Because we dismissed the cases at docket Nos. 10764-00 and
10767-00 for lack of jurisdiction, we denied respondent’s motion
to hold petitioners in default in each of those cases.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011