I'm sure those dates that he posted were correct.
Post# of 72446
Posted On: 08/05/2016 11:54:10 AM
Re: daydreaming2 #26080
I'm sure those dates that he posted were correct. The premise of the Rosen firm's appeal is going to be that Failla was wrong to dismiss their case (that case being dismissed because there is no merit) and that there IS merit -- in other words, they will say that they are not guilty of failing to adequately research the case for merit before they sued, because the case had merit and should have been pursued (not true, of course).
Because the sanctions would be for exactly that reason -- the case should never have been filed because there was no merit, and they should have KNOWN there was no merit -- there is no way the judge can impose sanctions before a finding of fact by the Appellate Court that there is indeed NO merit to the case.
So, Judge Failla can go ahead with the hearings, but she's not going to be able to make a ruling to sanction the Rosen firm until the appeal is finished. I think that's why they have the appeal on the EXPEDITED fast track.
Interesting that Stern, the most junior person in the firm, is going to be the lead counsel on this. In this case, lead counsel = fall guy.
Because the sanctions would be for exactly that reason -- the case should never have been filed because there was no merit, and they should have KNOWN there was no merit -- there is no way the judge can impose sanctions before a finding of fact by the Appellate Court that there is indeed NO merit to the case.
So, Judge Failla can go ahead with the hearings, but she's not going to be able to make a ruling to sanction the Rosen firm until the appeal is finished. I think that's why they have the appeal on the EXPEDITED fast track.
Interesting that Stern, the most junior person in the firm, is going to be the lead counsel on this. In this case, lead counsel = fall guy.
(5)
(0)