Holly Ruocco - Page 7

                                        - 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