- 7 -
bore the signature of petitioner and another bore the signature
of J.C. Chisum.
On December 18, 2001, the Court’s Order to Show Cause Under
Rule 91(f) was issued, and petitioner was directed to show cause,
on or before January 10, 2002, why the facts set forth in
respondent’s motion paper should not be accepted as established
for purposes of the pending case. The Order further stated:
If no response is filed within the period specified
above with respect to any matter or portion thereof, or
if the response is evasive or not fairly directed to
the proposed stipulation or portion thereof, that
matter or portion thereof will be deemed stipulated for
purposes of the pending case, and an order will be
entered accordingly, pursuant to Rule 91(f)(3).
On January 14, 2002, the Court received from petitioner a
Motion for a Date and Time Set Certain for Trial, dated
January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, the Court instituted a
conference telephone call with the parties. The Court explained
that petitioner’s motion for a date and time certain for trial
could not be granted because it conflicted with a trial
previously set. The Court also advised petitioner that her
response to the order to show cause had not been received. The
nature of petitioner’s response, which apparently had been mailed
but not delivered to the Court, was described. Petitioner’s
response (a copy of which was attached to respondent’s motion to
dismiss) was not fairly directed to the proposed stipulation or
any portion thereof but raised frivolous legal objections and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011