I don't know exactly what happened, but the docket
Post# of 7802
Posted On: 11/06/2014 2:52:06 PM
I don't know exactly what happened, but the docket was updated with this:
11/05/2014
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Party: Volentine, Darrell
11/05/2014
MOTION TO VACATE
CLERKS DEFAULT AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Party: Volentine, Darrell
11/05/2014
MOTION TO - FOR
DENY PLTFS MOTION FOR FINAL DAMAGES DETERMINATION AND PLTFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Party: Volentine, Darrell
11/05/2014
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Party: Volentine, Darrell
Looks to me like the def asked for more time and asked to have everything against him dropped. I am guessing the additional time was granted, but he will have to prove why the damages should be dropped. Then I am assuming SFRX will show why damages should not be dropped. Anyone else that really knows...feel free to correct me if this is not accurate.
11/05/2014
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Party: Volentine, Darrell
11/05/2014
MOTION TO VACATE
CLERKS DEFAULT AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Party: Volentine, Darrell
11/05/2014
MOTION TO - FOR
DENY PLTFS MOTION FOR FINAL DAMAGES DETERMINATION AND PLTFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Party: Volentine, Darrell
11/05/2014
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Party: Volentine, Darrell
Looks to me like the def asked for more time and asked to have everything against him dropped. I am guessing the additional time was granted, but he will have to prove why the damages should be dropped. Then I am assuming SFRX will show why damages should not be dropped. Anyone else that really knows...feel free to correct me if this is not accurate.
(0)
(0)