- 4 -
C. Respondent’s Motion and Supplement
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. In the motion, respondent asserts that this case
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction “on the ground that
the petition was not filed by a trustee authorized to bring suit
on behalf of the trust.”
Upon the filing of respondent’s motion to dismiss, the Court
issued an Order directing Bella Vista to file an objection, if
any, to respondent’s motion, taking into account Rule 60 and
attaching to its objection a copy of the trust instrument or
other documentation showing that the petition was filed on behalf
of a fiduciary legally entitled to institute a case on Bella
Vista’s behalf.
Shortly after the issuance of the foregoing Order,
respondent filed a Supplement to respondent’s motion to dismiss,
attaching thereto copies of certain documents that respondent had
just received from Robert Hogue. The Court then extended the
time within which Bella Vista was to file any objection to
respondent’s motion to dismiss, as supplemented.
D. Bella Vista’s Objection
Ultimately, the Court received an Objection, leave for the
filing of which was granted, to respondent’s motion to dismiss,
as supplemented. The Objection, which was signed by Robert
Hogue, has as its core thesis that this case should be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011