So the plaintiffs should not have screwed things up by rejecting the default judgement.How could they
know they would receive a default judgement?
Malihi could have ruled any way he chose no matter what the plaintiffs' attorneys had been told in chambers. In chamber conversations have no weight in the court room.
That's further evidenced by the fact that the plaintiffs' attorneys had been told in chambers that each case would be tried separately and they would up being bundled together, just like they were in the latest trial.
Isn't it possible that a default judgement wasn't an automatic "done deal" as expected?
Couldn't Malihi have rendered something other than a default judgement?
When the judge tells the plaintiffs he would render a default judgement and then says the same thing in his written decision, then it is reasonable to assume they would have gotten a default judgement.