- 6 -
subsequently set for trial at the San Francisco, California,
trial session beginning October 31, 2005. By Order dated October
25, 2005, however, the case was again continued subject to
further direction of the Court.
In respondent’s status report filed December 28, 2005, he
represented that while petitioner’s OIC package was
“processable”, it was incomplete; additional financial
information would be requested. By Order dated January 3, 2006,
the Court restored the case to the general docket.
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was filed on May
15, 2006. On May 22, 2006, petitioner filed what the Court
styled as a motion for remand. Among the attachments to the
motion is a letter from respondent to petitioner dated January
19, 2006, advising petitioner that his OIC is incomplete and
advising petitioner of the items that he should submit. Also
attached to petitioner’s motion is a letter from petitioner to
respondent dated March 29, 2006, in which petitioner apologized
for his late response to respondent’s letter of January 19, 2006.
By notice dated March 22, 2006, the case was again set for
trial at the San Francisco trial session beginning June 12, 2006.
By Court Order, petitioner’s motion for remand and respondent’s
motion for summary judgment were set for hearing at the Trial
Session scheduled for June 12, 2006.
At the hearing on June 12, 2006, respondent alleged that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011