- 15 -
expected. Petitioners have been admonished that their failure to
prepare for trial and/or comply with this Court’s Orders, Rules
and Procedures would result in a default.
In each instance where petitioners have attempted to provide
explanations of their failure to properly proceed and/or
prosecute their cases, their explanations were found to be
disingenuous and without foundation. For example, petitioner
Hook stated that she did not believe that her case was set for
trial, even though so advised by respondent on two different
occasions. Petitioner Hook, a lawyer, suggested that it was
sufficient that she sent a letter to the Court asking whether her
case was set for trial. No such letter has been located.
Moreover, none of the Court’s Notices of Trial, Orders, Pretrial
Orders, and related matters, that were served on and mailed to
petitioners has been returned for failure of delivery.
Petitioners, who are practicing lawyers, could have easily
determined the status of their cases.
On December 13, 2002, petitioners’ consolidated cases were
scheduled for trial at the Denver, Colorado, Trial Session that
commenced on May 12, 2003. Petitioners were well aware of that
date, and yet they did not meet with respondent’s counsel to
prepare their cases for trial. Petitioners did not advise
respondent or the Court that they did not intend to appear until
the eve of trial. Curiously, both petitioners claimed to have
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