Posted On: 07/15/2014 2:02:32 PM
Post# of 8059
I hope you are right in saying trial began 7-14. (Would also have been nice to do TX without a jury)
If trial began 7-14, the following case note re continuance by one of the parties is in error- their conflicting statements are confusing
07/11/2014 - Status Conference (Civil) continued pursuant to party's motion to 07/18/2014 at 11:00AM before Judge Eddie C Sturgeon.
if that was correct, trial would be after 7-18
status conference was previously set 3 days before planned 7-14 trial
from last i read TX will decide whether Geo is entitled to compensation FROM BOB re chiefly 2 pieces of equipment-Geo not asking for equipment itself (and to do so would be complicated due to Brads 3rd party purchase)
though CA case will be much bigger of course -dealing w many other issues in 13 counts -Bobs CWRN's claims- this unusual and imo (and as per JVA) improper bifurcation of venue and issues
If trial began 7-14, the following case note re continuance by one of the parties is in error- their conflicting statements are confusing
07/11/2014 - Status Conference (Civil) continued pursuant to party's motion to 07/18/2014 at 11:00AM before Judge Eddie C Sturgeon.
if that was correct, trial would be after 7-18
status conference was previously set 3 days before planned 7-14 trial
from last i read TX will decide whether Geo is entitled to compensation FROM BOB re chiefly 2 pieces of equipment-Geo not asking for equipment itself (and to do so would be complicated due to Brads 3rd party purchase)
though CA case will be much bigger of course -dealing w many other issues in 13 counts -Bobs CWRN's claims- this unusual and imo (and as per JVA) improper bifurcation of venue and issues
(0)
(0)
