The timeframe is actually on the filing they made
Post# of 56324
Posted On: 03/20/2015 3:57:08 PM
The timeframe is actually on the filing they made on 2015-03-04:
"Letter from Plaintiff dated 03-MAR-2015 seeking dispensing compliance with Rules 364 and 369. received on 04-MAR-2015"
Rule 369 (2) states HC had 10 days to file in response to CEN:
369. (1) A party may, in a notice of motion, request that the motion be decided on the basis of written representations.
Marginal note:Request for oral hearing
(2) A respondent to a motion brought in accordance with subsection (1) shall serve and file a respondent's record within 10 days after being served under rule 364 and, if the respondent objects to disposition of the motion in writing, indicate in its written representations or memorandum of fact and law the reasons why the motion should not be disposed of in writing.
That is why CEN filed the letter on 2015-03-13.
HC is now 7 days past due with providing all the paperwork they have in regards to CEN.
I don't know how long HC can stall, or what the next course of action would be for CEN.
"Letter from Plaintiff dated 03-MAR-2015 seeking dispensing compliance with Rules 364 and 369. received on 04-MAR-2015"
Rule 369 (2) states HC had 10 days to file in response to CEN:
369. (1) A party may, in a notice of motion, request that the motion be decided on the basis of written representations.
Marginal note:Request for oral hearing
(2) A respondent to a motion brought in accordance with subsection (1) shall serve and file a respondent's record within 10 days after being served under rule 364 and, if the respondent objects to disposition of the motion in writing, indicate in its written representations or memorandum of fact and law the reasons why the motion should not be disposed of in writing.
That is why CEN filed the letter on 2015-03-13.
HC is now 7 days past due with providing all the paperwork they have in regards to CEN.
I don't know how long HC can stall, or what the next course of action would be for CEN.
(0)
(0)