In light of the fact that this case was brought in federal court and inadvertence is the only apparent explanation for the untimeliness of Defendant’s demand, the inquiry respectfully ends there. See Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338, 356 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding that inadvertence in failing to make a timely demand does not satisfy Rule 39(b))
It is the judges discretion, and I am sure that the fact that there was a pending motion to dismiss the case or transfer the case pending in Florida may be a consideration. The judge extended the Discovery timelines and can certainly grant a jury trial.
Jury or no jury, Cowan will be annihilated. It is odd how you don't point out the obvious flaws insofar as Cowan implies that TAUG was worthless. I thought you had experience in these matters. Did the independent appraiser picked by both parties determine TAUG was worthless? Seems like there is also a very very big F-UP by Cowan if this will be part of their defense.
How is your theory that TAUG is a shell coming, have you figured out the reasons why TAUG is not a shell yet? I doubt it took the independent appraiser long to figure out why TAUG is not a shell.
