-23-
petitioners’ theory implausible in light of the evidence. It is
true that Mr. Kell’s contemporaneous notes indicate that on
May 16, 2003, Mr. Gazi told Mr. Kell that there was a “continuance
granted to 6/30/03”.11 According to these same notes, however, Mr.
Kauffman and Ms. Miller “were also told to settle.” Although it
is unclear from these notes exactly who “told” Mr. Kauffman and
Ms. Miller to settle, on the basis of all the evidence we believe
it most likely was Mr. Gazi. The evidence clearly shows, contrary
to petitioners’ allegations, that Mr. Gazi expected Mr. Kauffman
and Ms. Miller to settle the cases--a conclusion that is
reinforced by the immediate cessation of communications between
Mr. Gazi and Mr. Kell and the absence of any evidence that
petitioners were doing anything to prepare for the new trial date
that Mr. Gazi supposedly believed was only a month away.
Petitioners do not now dispute that Mr. Kauffman traveled
from Florida to Baltimore to visit Mr. Gazi and his son on June
15, 2003.12 We find credible Mr. Kauffman’s testimony that the
11 June 30, 2003, was the deadline requested by the parties
for submitting stipulated decisions in these cases. We surmise
that the “continuance” referred to in Mr. Kell’s notes relates to
this deadline beyond the scheduled trial session.
12 In an affidavit attached to petitioners’ memoranda in
support of the motions for leave to file motions to vacate, Mr.
Gazi averred that the meeting with Mr. Kauffman occurred in April
2003, before petitioners had received respondent’s settlement
offers. Petitioners appear to have abandoned this version of the
facts. Petitioners’ inconstancy with regard to this and other
significant factual allegations undermines their credibility.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011