InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 9
Posts 2190
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/02/2006

Re: justfrank post# 91189

Tuesday, 10/16/2007 1:41:38 PM

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:41:38 PM

Post# of 157299
Maybe he's as "confused" as Vern once was about that alleged dismissal:

Posted by: siriuslyricher
In reply to: siriuslyricher who wrote msg# 85551 Date:8/28/2007 2:18:40 PM
Post #of 91191

Vern, you misinterpreted the ruling.

This is the link to the docket report.

http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/docketinfo.asp?pCase_Year=2007&pCase_Seq=20439&pCase_Co....

The ruling is a “Denying Order Showing Cause Etc” - the judge denied GlobeTel's motion on the Court's Order to Show cause only with regard to Trimax. The Order to Show Cause would have given GlobeTel immediate rights to take back the equipment.

It was denied on jurisidictional grounds; the judge said GlobeTel should have brought the action against Trimax (not Uli) in Collier County . The lawsuit remains pending and has not been dismissed.

My guess is that it will end up like the hangar suit, i.e., it will be settled between the parties.

Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.