- 7 -
increased deficiency alleged in respondent’s amendment to answer
on which respondent has the burden of proof.
On October 7, 2002, this case was recalled for trial on the
increased deficiency alleged in respondent’s amendment to answer.
Neither petitioner nor any authorized representative of peti-
tioner appeared. Respondent appeared, and the Court held a trial
on the increased deficiency alleged by respondent.6
On October 9, 2002, this case was recalled for a hearing on
respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Neither
petitioner nor any authorized representative of petitioner
appeared. Counsel for respondent appeared and informed the Court
that on October 7, 2002, she had sent to petitioner by U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and by facsimile a copy of respon-
dent’s motion together with a transmittal letter informing
petitioner of the hearing on respondent’s motion to dismiss for
lack of prosecution that the Court scheduled on October 9, 2002,
and of the consequences of her failure to appear at that hearing.
On October 10, 2002, the Court received a document from
petitioner that the Court had filed as petitioner’s motion to
dismiss (petitioner’s October 10, 2002 motion to dismiss).
In an Order dated October 16, 2002 (October 16, 2002 Order),
the Court denied petitioner’s October 10, 2002 motion to dismiss.
6The Court ordered the parties to file posttrial briefs.
Petitioner failed to file a brief in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011