- 6 -
In the answer to BHC’s petition, respondent included specific
allegations that BHC’s 1997 tax return was due on September 15,
1998, but that BHC did not file the return until May 28, 1999.
Petitioners did not file replies to respondent’s answers.
By notice dated May 23, 2002, we set this case for trial at
the Tampa, Florida, trial session beginning on October 28, 2002.
The notice specifically stated that “YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY
RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND ENTRY OF DECISION AGAINST
YOU.” Our standing pretrial order, which requires that all facts
be stipulated to the maximum extent possible, all documentary and
written evidence be stipulated in accordance with Rule 91(b), and
each party prepare a trial memorandum not less that 15 days
before the first day of the trial session, was attached to the
notice. The standing pretrial order also warned that “If any
unexcused failure to comply with this Order adversely affects the
timing or conduct of the trial, the Court may impose appropriate
sanctions, including dismissal”.
On June 26, 2002, counsel for respondent telephoned Mr.
Bedford in order to introduce himself and arrange for a
conference to discuss this case. Respondent’s counsel was unable
to reach Mr. Bedford, so he left him an answering machine message
and sent letters informally requesting that petitioners answer
questions and produce certain documents. Mr. Bedford provided
cursory responses to some but not all of the questions, and he
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011