I still have to disagree. The update on the court website regarding HC's backdated response showed up about 9:10 AM on March 5th. The site seems to regularly be behind by about a day regarding it's updates, so I have to stretch an extra day to assume that the "response" was known about on the 3rd. It would make sense then that CEN would file a motion to request that evidence be presented showing that HC did in fact respond on the 26th.
My reasoning for these assumptions come from the wording of rules 364 " a person bringing a motion shall serve a motion record and file an electronic copy of or three paper copies of that record
Read More: http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=2782...z3U6JZsxGq
and 369 A party may, in a notice of motion, request that the motion be decided on the basis of written representations.
Read More: investorshangout.com/post/view?id=2782786#ixzz3U6Jkce00
This says, to me, that CEN requested HC to comply with 364 and was requesting the court to comply with 369 in the absence of compliance of 364 by HC.
But, I'm not versed in the legal languages.
It just doesn't seem to me that "seeking dispensing compliance" would be them trying to rid themselves of the obligations set forth under 364 and 369
My reasoning for these assumptions come from the wording of rules 364 " a person bringing a motion shall serve a motion record and file an electronic copy of or three paper copies of that record
Read More: http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=2782...z3U6JZsxGq
and 369 A party may, in a notice of motion, request that the motion be decided on the basis of written representations.
Read More: investorshangout.com/post/view?id=2782786#ixzz3U6Jkce00
This says, to me, that CEN requested HC to comply with 364 and was requesting the court to comply with 369 in the absence of compliance of 364 by HC.
But, I'm not versed in the legal languages.
It just doesn't seem to me that "seeking dispensing compliance" would be them trying to rid themselves of the obligations set forth under 364 and 369
