- 5 -
Six days before the scheduled April 29, 2002, Trial Session, the
Court received from petitioners a document entitled “MOTION
REQUESTING IMMEDIATE INFORMATION ABOUT TRIAL SETTING, AND, IF
NECESSARY, MOTION REQUESTING NEW TRIAL SETTING”. Said document
was filed at the April 29, 2002, Trial Session as “Petitioners’
Motion To Continue”.
At the trial session, respondent filed a second motion to
dismiss for lack of prosecution alleging that since the
continuance from the September 2001 Trial Session, petitioners
once more failed to meet or meaningfully communicate with
respondent, as required by the Court’s Orders and Rules.
Respondent’s counsel established that petitioners had been
notified by mail on January 9, 2002, of the need for a meeting
prior to the April 29, 2002, Trial Session and a February 5,
2002, conference date was set.
On the night of February 4, 2002, petitioner Hook left a
message on respondent’s counsel’s telephone answering machine
canceling the conference. During February 2002, respondent’s
counsel served discovery on petitioners, but they did not respond
to the discovery requests. By a March 18, 2002, letter to
petitioners, respondent’s counsel again invited petitioners to
confer on April 9, 2002, regarding the April 29, 2002, Trial
Session. In an April 8, 2002, letter, petitioner Hook advised
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