Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Canedawg
According to the paralegal’s declaration, a motion to be admitted pro hoc vice was already made (back in dec?).

Yes, it was done. There's an FR thread about it somewhere.

86 posted on 02/25/2009 7:28:49 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: Red Steel

the suit was filed as an interpleader suit which requires the filing of a motion for leave to file interpleader. This is because, interplaeder suits are about proprties related to commercial transactions, so if by that leave a court sees that it isnt about the type of property which can be obtained by an interpleader suit the court can quickly dispose of it.

In the above suit the motion to try the suit as an interpleader suit was denied as the judge didnt feel a human life, the plaintiff, was a property which commercial transactions are allowed. However the court kept the suit alive so that another type of action action maybe sought.
The defendants had earleir filed for the case to be dismissed as it wasnt an interpleader type suit, so the jugde asked the plaintiff to file just legal argument — laws, case laws— as to why the whole suit should not be dismissed.
Instead of the plaintiff to file a responds to the motion to dismiss, they refiled there matter still as an interpleader. The judge found that unacceptable & asked then to file a responds to the motion to dismiss.
This latest ruling is stating that what was filed didnt meet the definition of a respond as some pages were blank so the judge asked them to refile as he wasnt completely sure the blank pages were an error. So they have until 5pm 2day to refile a respond to the motion to dismiss


101 posted on 02/26/2009 6:16:42 AM PST by myson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson