- 6 -
respondent’s counsel that she was not aware that Case I had been
scheduled for trial on April 29, 2002.
At the April 29, 2002, Trial Session, the Court asked
petitioner Hook if she was aware that her case had been scheduled
for trial and she responded that when she heard about the trial
setting (about 4 months before), she had written to the Court to
inquire about the trial session and because she did not receive a
response back from the Court, she ignored respondent’s counsel’s
January and March notifications of the impending April trial
date.
The Court’s files maintained for Case I do not reveal any
such letter from petitioner. In addition, the Court’s records
reveal that all Court notifications, Orders, etc., had been sent
to petitioners Hook and Smith at their separate addresses by
certified mail, and that the notices of trial and Orders sent by
the Court to petitioners were not returned as undeliverable.
Under the circumstances, the Court found petitioner Hook’s
explanations to be disingenuous. Accordingly, petitioners’
explanation or excuses were not accepted and Case I was set for
trial on May 2, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. The Court admonished
petitioners that failure to appear would result in a dismissal or
default of their case.
On May 2, 2002, petitioners Hook and Smith appeared and
attempted, as a preliminary matter, to offer four boxes of
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