- 4 -
Petitioners filed an Objection to respondent’s motion to dismiss.
This matter was called for hearing at the Court’s motions
session in Washington, D.C. Counsel for respondent appeared at
the hearing and was heard. In contrast, there was no appearance
by or on behalf of petitioners at the hearing, nor did
petitioners file with the Court a written statement under Rule
50(c), the provisions of which were noted by the Court in its
Order setting respondent’s motion for hearing.
During the hearing, counsel for respondent informed the
Court that respondent had reconsidered his position and concluded
that the petition was timely filed with regard to the notices of
determination dated July 13, 2001. In particular, respondent
asserted that because the petition was mailed to the Court on May
7, 2002, a date within 30 days of the District Court’s April 11,
2002, Order denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, the
petition was timely filed with regard to the notices of
determination dated July 13, 2001.
Following the hearing, respondent filed a Supplement to his
motion to dismiss. In the Supplement, respondent elaborated on
his position with regard to the notices of determination dated
July 13, 2001. However, respondent maintained his original
position that the petition was untimely with regard to the notice
of determination dated August 8, 2001.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011