Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
→Summary judgment
On 4 January 2010, Judge Wolfson issued an order denying the defense motion to stay the proceedings, but ''granting'' the extension of time.<ref name=ignorerules>{{cite web|last=Hurlbut|first=Terry|authorlink=User:TerryH|url=http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/is-the-us-district-court-ignoring-its-own-rules|title=Is the US District Court ignoring its own rules?|publisher=Essex County Conservative Examiner|date=2011-01-08|accessmonthday=January 9|accessyear=2011}}</ref> This grant seems highly dubious on close inspection, in view of Rule 6, which says that the time for a court to extend time for filing a brief is before the brief is due, and that the court may not extend time after-the-fact ''unless'' the failing party files a ''motion'' to extend the time, setting forth his excuse for not filing on time. The judge may in that event find that the failing party is guilty of nothing more serious than "excusable neglect."
On 4 January 2010, Judge Wolfson issued an order denying the defense motion to stay the proceedings, but ''granting'' the extension of time.<ref name=ignorerules>{{cite web|last=Hurlbut|first=Terry|authorlink=User:TerryH|url=http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/is-the-us-district-court-ignoring-its-own-rules|title=Is the US District Court ignoring its own rules?|publisher=Essex County Conservative Examiner|date=2011-01-08|accessmonthday=January 9|accessyear=2011}}</ref> This grant seems highly dubious on close inspection, in view of Rule 6, which says that the time for a court to extend time for filing a brief is before the brief is due, and that the court may not extend time after-the-fact ''unless'' the failing party files a ''motion'' to extend the time, setting forth his excuse for not filing on time. The judge may in that event find that the failing party is guilty of nothing more serious than "excusable neglect."
There, as of 9 January 2010, the case rests.
On 10 January, Purpura and Laster filed a fifteen-page "Reply Affidavit in Opposition to 'Anticipated' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Request for Summary Judgment." In that affidavit, they made every effort to address the question of sufficiency of service and their own standing, and also asserted that the defense had been receiving preferential treatment. Separately, they sent a letter to the judge asking her to hold oral argument, rather than merely ruling on submission only.<ref name=repanticip>{{cite web|last=Hurlbut|first=Terry|authorlink=User:TerryH|url=http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/hcr-plaintiffs-reply-to-anticipated-defense-motions|title=HCR plaintiffs reply to 'anticipated' defense motions|publisher=Essex County Conservative Examiner|date=2011-01-10|accessmonthday=January 10|accessyear=2011}}</ref>
There, as of 10 January 2010, the case rests.
== References ==
== References ==