Posted On: 08/10/2013 1:02:44 PM
Post# of 8059
CWRN filed Ca case 9-5-12 and without looking it up Geo et al were presumably served soon thereafter-and even if they werent they had other avenues revealing the Ca case-such as these boards.
entry of default was entered Dec 1 because Geo had not shown-to my knowledge,from what I've seen of pleadings, Geo didnt show until the long scheduled June 7,2013 Ca hearing,where Geo came w a motion to set aside the entry of default-which was scheduled to be heard sometime mid august (I hate dealing w these things in my spare time).
I've experienced many hearings w only 20 minutes notice and many ex parte hearings in an active case where there should've been no ex parte (in violation of statutory notice requirements) and yet the things decided in those cases were the law of the case and could not be reversed except on appeal-and in ex parte hearings where I was not notified of the hearing til more than 10 days later the time for a motion for reconsideration and thus appeal had passed and thus was foreclosed.
Unless the 9 elements of fraud are each shown w clear, cogent and convincing evidence,the rule where I live is the trial court cannot reverse what it has ruled-and the rules I've had to live by would foreclose any motion to reconsider if not brought within 10 days of the Dec 1 hearing.
I'm not familiar w Ca law-but these things usually apply across the country-does Ca have different rules?. I've regularly experienced tricksters blatantly violate statutory notice requirements and the court allowed them to get away w it -showing no concern whatsoever that 1 party never received notice because of the fraud of the other party. And CWRN did not violate notice requirements.
I would think a motion to abate would only apply to the same issues being debated in Tx- if there are same issues-and the CWRN complaint in Ca has a lot more issues than the Texas complaint- so Geo should not be allowed to delay CWRN ability to prosecute issues not addressed in Tx case--and imo CWRN has the benefit of proper venue- dont know how Geo has gotten away w Texas venue without the specific manipulation I 've seen so many times in court.
entry of default was entered Dec 1 because Geo had not shown-to my knowledge,from what I've seen of pleadings, Geo didnt show until the long scheduled June 7,2013 Ca hearing,where Geo came w a motion to set aside the entry of default-which was scheduled to be heard sometime mid august (I hate dealing w these things in my spare time).
I've experienced many hearings w only 20 minutes notice and many ex parte hearings in an active case where there should've been no ex parte (in violation of statutory notice requirements) and yet the things decided in those cases were the law of the case and could not be reversed except on appeal-and in ex parte hearings where I was not notified of the hearing til more than 10 days later the time for a motion for reconsideration and thus appeal had passed and thus was foreclosed.
Unless the 9 elements of fraud are each shown w clear, cogent and convincing evidence,the rule where I live is the trial court cannot reverse what it has ruled-and the rules I've had to live by would foreclose any motion to reconsider if not brought within 10 days of the Dec 1 hearing.
I'm not familiar w Ca law-but these things usually apply across the country-does Ca have different rules?. I've regularly experienced tricksters blatantly violate statutory notice requirements and the court allowed them to get away w it -showing no concern whatsoever that 1 party never received notice because of the fraud of the other party. And CWRN did not violate notice requirements.
I would think a motion to abate would only apply to the same issues being debated in Tx- if there are same issues-and the CWRN complaint in Ca has a lot more issues than the Texas complaint- so Geo should not be allowed to delay CWRN ability to prosecute issues not addressed in Tx case--and imo CWRN has the benefit of proper venue- dont know how Geo has gotten away w Texas venue without the specific manipulation I 've seen so many times in court.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
