-7-
It is now Monday, May 12th, 2003. Respondent’s
counsel has heard nothing further from petitioners,
petitioners’ former counsel, or petitioners’
prospective counsel. Moreover, petitioners’ former
counsel is no longer authorized to act on behalf of
petitioners; petitioners’ prospective counsel has not
provided an entry of appearance or power of attorney so
is not authorized to act on behalf of petitioners; and
respondent is prohibited from contacting petitioners
directly because petitioners are represented by
counsel. Therefore, respondent has no one with whom to
complete trial preparation or the stipulation
process.[5]
On May 14, 2003, these matters were discussed in a
telephonic conference among the Court, Mr. Kauffman, and Ms.
Miller. Mr. Kauffman informally requested the Court to continue
these cases and to allow him to withdraw as counsel. The Court
advised that any motion to continue or to withdraw as counsel
should be filed with the Court in writing and that the parties
should be prepared to argue any such motions on the record at the
May 19, 2003, calendar call. Petitioners filed no motion to
continue these cases or to withdraw Mr. Kauffman as counsel. No
other representative filed any entry of appearance on
petitioners’ behalf.
On May 16, 2003, in a telephonic conference with the Court,
Mr. Kauffman and Ms. Miller reported that the parties had agreed
to bases for settling these cases. They requested permission for
5 Also on May 13, 2003, respondent filed motions to request
a date and time certain in these cases, and a motion to
consolidate these cases for trial, briefing, and opinion, wherein
Ms. Miller made similar statements. These motions were
ultimately denied as moot.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011