if actual default judgment, what is the substance
Post# of 8059
Posted On: 08/02/2014 2:37:49 AM
Re: ClarkGriswold #6748
if actual default judgment, what is the substance of the 8-29 motion- why would there be an actual default judgment so soon after tx case - just 1 week after - just a formality because of entry of default dec 2012 and geo did not follow thru to set aside such entry? but i thought they did june 2013- so actual default so soon after tx seems odd and doesnt seem to have been expected by bingo either from his post 6667
maybe O'cat can tell us -he seems to have access to the contents of the docs themselves- remember ca dec1 2012 entry of default against geo filed but geo made a motion re that ca june 7 2013 and that dec 2012 filing was not same as default judgement
from bingos post 6667 its evident bobs cwrn is not in default or doesnt intend to be
geo lost ca 3 million on its operations last reported quarter or year -see previous post of mine
attorneys and trials are expensive and if geo- seeing it could not even win on the very narrow issues geo selected for tx -the only narrow issues possibly favorable to geo- maybe geo sees the writing on the wall- they probably hoped for a positive TX case ruling to offset any CA money ruling against them and carry them forward-pay their att fees- to CA -if they intended on proceeding to CA after tx- if they dont it would be due to lack of money imo
just a possibility -hard to know without seeing the files
if geos operations are all in Mex, as I think they are, maybe they think Bob et al will not be able to collect from any CA ruling -who knows -lot of crazy things in the battle between geo and bobs cwrn
Posted On: 07/16/2014 8:09:05 PM
Posted By: Bingo
Re: microcaps #6666
FYI: CWRN, Robert L. Cotton and Shirley Lee Won Texas case this afternoon period: They asked for 12 million, Jury awarded them ZERO....0000000000000000000000000000000000000000...........
So lets see how this will play out in San Diego, which is a much bigger case.................................................
maybe O'cat can tell us -he seems to have access to the contents of the docs themselves- remember ca dec1 2012 entry of default against geo filed but geo made a motion re that ca june 7 2013 and that dec 2012 filing was not same as default judgement
from bingos post 6667 its evident bobs cwrn is not in default or doesnt intend to be
geo lost ca 3 million on its operations last reported quarter or year -see previous post of mine
attorneys and trials are expensive and if geo- seeing it could not even win on the very narrow issues geo selected for tx -the only narrow issues possibly favorable to geo- maybe geo sees the writing on the wall- they probably hoped for a positive TX case ruling to offset any CA money ruling against them and carry them forward-pay their att fees- to CA -if they intended on proceeding to CA after tx- if they dont it would be due to lack of money imo
just a possibility -hard to know without seeing the files
if geos operations are all in Mex, as I think they are, maybe they think Bob et al will not be able to collect from any CA ruling -who knows -lot of crazy things in the battle between geo and bobs cwrn
Posted On: 07/16/2014 8:09:05 PM
Posted By: Bingo
Re: microcaps #6666
FYI: CWRN, Robert L. Cotton and Shirley Lee Won Texas case this afternoon period: They asked for 12 million, Jury awarded them ZERO....0000000000000000000000000000000000000000...........
So lets see how this will play out in San Diego, which is a much bigger case.................................................
(0)
(0)