- 5 -
respondent’s counsel stated that she wanted to move for relief
from two of the previously agreed stipulations because she
believed that the stipulations were in error. After ascertaining
from petitioners’ counsel that he objected to respondent’s
request for relief, we suspended the briefing schedule to permit
respondent to file a motion for relief from the stipulations by
order dated April 27, 2006.
On May 5, 2006, respondent filed a Motion for Relief from
Stipulations (motion), requesting relief from paragraphs 22 and
34 of the Stipulation (the disputed stipulations) pursuant to
Rule 91(e) but did not file a motion to vacate the March 6, 2006,
order granting the parties’ Joint Motion for Leave To Submit Case
Under Rule 122 (March 6, 2006, order).4 Paragraph 22 of the
Stipulation states that Mr. Mathia was not a notice partner or a
member of a notice group of Greenwich. Paragraph 34 of the
Stipulation provides that Mr. Smith, as the TMP, had the
authority to bind all of Greenwich’s partners to the stipulation
of settlement. Respondent now contends that Mr. Mathia was a
notice partner and, therefore, was not automatically bound by the
stipulation of settlement under section 6224(c)(3). Respondent
4Rule 91(e) provides that a stipulation shall be treated as
a conclusive admission by the parties, “unless otherwise
permitted by the Court or agreed upon by those parties.” Rule
91(e) also provides that “The Court will not permit a party to a
stipulation to qualify, change, or contradict a stipulation in
whole or in part, except that it may do so where justice
requires.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011