Display MoreQuote from Eric Walker: “Not exactly sure how to describe the newest document (doc. 95)”
Eric,
Never read anything so convoluted. Not your post, but the document 95 you refer too. Even Abd...court too, will be hard pressed to make any sense of it.…
I had a few minutes to look at this today. BTW, Merry Christmas everyone!.
I think Eric summed it up nicely. Rossi and his lawyer Annesser failed to file their response on time (Document 89), so this document (95) is their excuses and plea for forgiveness. As a legal document, it's fairly straight forward. Here's a quick analysis:
In paragraphs 1 through 5 Annesser (Rossi's lawyer) summarizes the events leading up to IH's submission of the third amended counterclaims.
Then in 6, Annesser states "Believing that the Third Amended Counterclaims and Third Party Claims were a nullity ... Defendants [meaning Rossi/Annesser] did not believe that a response to the Third Amended Counterclaim [submitted by IH] was required."
7 Simply makes the point that the court entered an order on Dec. 5th, regarding IH's third amended answer.
Then in 8 we learn for sure what this is all about: "In light of the Court’s recognition of the Third Amended Counterclaim [by IH] on December 5, 2016, Plaintiffs [Rossi/Anmesser] believed, perhaps mistakenly, that Plaintiffs had fourteen (14) days from this Court’s acceptance of the Third Amended Counterclaim in which to file their Response..."
9 States that they were unsure of the exact due date but made it their goal an intention to file their response by Dec. 12.
The main excuse comes in 10: "Due to a confluence of other deadlines and scheduling issues, as well as due to the length and complexity of the facts alleged, Plaintiffs were unable to complete their Response by December 12, 2016, and on December 14, 2016 Plaintiffs filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendants IH and IPH’s Third Amended Answer...(D.E. 89)."
11, 12 and 13, in brief, say essentially 'we tried diligently and acted in good faith'.
In 14 they hope the judge agrees that the two day delay should not be a big deal: "Plaintiffs’ note the relatively small nature of the delay, and do not believe judicial proceedings will be negatively impacted, or that any party has been unduly prejudiced."
And in 15 we learn that IH is objecting to their request/plea for giving the extra 2 days: "Undersigned counsel has communicated with counsel for Defendants, who object to the requested relief."
I think the main take away from this is Rossi/Annesser continue to look like amateurs compared to IH's big league pro team. I would expect that the judge would give them leniency and allow their filing. But since Rossi's affirmative defense (if allowed) is so lame, I'm not sure how helpful this is.
I remain amazed at what we learned from Rossi's Affirmative Defenses, that he is trying to make the case that the Term Sheet, which is explicitly a Rental Agreement, was subsequently agreed by IH to be the GPT.
So probably the judge will give them a pass and accept their response. But what a lame response!
Well, it is somewhat entertaining, especially if you like tragedies.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!