After that one of a kind court order from that 11th Circus Court of Appeal which granted the defendant a variable length second time extension of 14 additional days after they rule on a dismissal motion that itself was at the top of frivolousness scale, on 2/2/2014 there came another order related to the matter. The docket sheet mentioned that the order was denying that frivolous dismissal motion. So, I thought that the intention was to subdue the effect of that outrageous second time extension order and did not think there was a reason for me to read it. That was until yesterday when I discovered I was wrong in expecting it to be corruption free. The court gave 30 days instead of 14 extension from after this ruling on the motion for no reason. Although the second time extension motion itself asked for 14 days after ruling on the dismissal motion and the wonderful order granting it stated that the defendants brief is due after 14 days from ruling on the obviously frivolous motion, the court in this order apparently wanted to make a charitable donation of additional 16 days in contradiction with the order granting the defendant's time extension request.
The order denying the dismissal motion
In addition, why would the court be concerned about the other issue of when the defendant will file its brief to begin with when it is in the process of ruling on an entirely different motion with an entirely different issue , not to mention another issue that has been already ruled on?
No comments:
Post a Comment