May 2012
Actually there's been a delay in this case.
When HTWF filed the mediation questionnaire , HTWF said they are willing to discuss mediation, Estate said they weren't willing to do it. As HTWF wanted mediation, court set a date for a mediator and in the process delayed the dates to
appellants shall file the opening brief on or before June 1, 2012;
appellees shall file the answering brief on or before July 30, 2012;
appellants may file their optional reply brief within fourteen (14) days from the service date of the answering brief.
So currently the due date for start of the process is this Friday. However last week HTWF lawyer has filed a motion asking for a 90 day extension / delay . HTWF lawyer says that they couldn't get the transcripts from the court reporter and they need more time to get them and get ready for their opening brief. They also say Estate will oppose to the extension/ delay. Estate hasn't filed a counter motion yet and the court hasn't made a decision in regards to the delay yet.
I'll let you know when there's a decision either way.
-------------------------------
June 2012
Decision is in, the time to extend is granted
Appellants’ unopposed motion for a 90-day extension of time to file the opening brief is granted.
The opening brief is due August 30, 2012.
The answering brief is due October 31, 2012.
The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.
--------------
August 2012
In not so surprising news 2 days before the opening brief was due HTWF's lawyer has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel due to non payment. HTWF is asking for 60 day extension to find a new lawyer
----------------------------
August 2012
Estate filed the following the motion.
The motion just asks the facts they listed below to be considered by the court while they are deciding about the lawyer withdrawal and 60 day extension for HTWF to find a new lawyer.
- March 2010, HTWF's lawyers Newman & Newman has requested to withdraw due to non-payment of lawyer fees.
- July 2010, Cohen IP law group became HTWF's lawyers
- Octorber 2010 Cohen IP Law group requested to withdraw due to non-payment of lawyer fees.
- November 2010 Edgar Pease became the lawyer of HTWF.
- May 2011, Pease requested to withdraw as counsel.
- May 2011, Barbag became HTWF's new lawyer
- August 2011, Smith Campbell Clifford became the new lawyers and also got an extension.
- January 2012, Smith Campbell Clifford requested to withdraw due to non-payment of lawyer fees.
- February 2012 Eveland Associates became the lawyer of HTWF.
- May 2012 Eveland Associates asked for an extension citing difficulties in obtaining transcripts and granted.
- August 2012 Eveland Associates asked to withdraw as counsel due to non-payment of lawyer fees.
- Opening brief is due on August 30th.
------------------------------
September 2012
Appellants’ counsel motion to withdraw as counsel of record is granted. Court records shall be amended to reflect that Jeremy D. Eveland of Eveland & Associates is no longer counsel of record for appellants.
Appellants’ are inform that a corporation cannot represent itself. See In Re Highley, 459, F.2d, 554 (9th Cir. 2004). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall enter an appearance of new counsel. Failure to enter an appearance of new counsel may result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal.
The briefing schedule is reset. The opening brief is due November 9, 2012. The answering brief is due December 10, 2012. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.
In other words Estate is trying to demonstrate the never ending hiring a lawyer, not being able to pay them, needing an extension cycle.
------------------------------------
November 2012
HTWF had 21 days to add a lawyer and until November 9 to file their opening brief. HTWF added a new lawyer in the last two days - they were late. They also did not file their opening brief.
As far as I know , the court clerk will now notify them saying that the brief is late and give them 15-30 days to file it. It's possible that the new lawyer will file a motion to ask for yet again another extension.
In other words the never ending HTWF lawsuit still continues.
--------------------------------
As expected the new HTWF lawyer has asked for a 90 day extension.
------------------------------
MJ Estate has filed an opposition to HTWF's request to extend time. They are also asking for the court to dismiss the appeal based on failure to prosecute.
For your reading pleasure : http://www.scribd.com/doc/113308708/MJ-Estate-opposition-to-HTWF-motion-to-extend-time
-----------------------------------
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LKK): Appellant’s opposed motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted in part. The opening brief is due January 7, 2013. The answering brief is due February 6, 2013. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Any further request for an extension of time to file the opening brief is disfavored.
--------------------
January 2013
Tomorrow is the day for opening brief, but HTWF just asked for another extension of 60 days - until March 2013 - due to personal reasons and inability to get / find some sealed documents.
---------------------
Not surprisingly Estate has filed an objection to the extension request and requested the court to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute
---------------------
Appellants’ opposed motion for an additional extension of time to file the opening brief is granted in part. The opening brief is due February 25, 2013. The answering brief is due March 27, 2013. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. No further extensions of time to file the opening brief will be granted absent exceptional circumstances. Appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution is denied. Appellees are informed that when a response to a motion requests affirmative relief, the title of the response must identity the request for affirmative relief.