Followers | 48 |
Posts | 2221 |
Boards Moderated | 1 |
Alias Born | 01/28/2013 |
![](http://investorshub.advfn.com/images/default_ih_profile2_4848.jpg?cb=0)
Monday, February 04, 2013 10:52:38 AM
If 846 was jointly filed and granted by JJ to extend the briefing schedules for all the motions filed on 12/18 (GOOG's 820/831/833 and VRNG's 822/825/835) -- and keep in mind 846 specifically etched in stone opposition and reply brief dates of 1/25 and 2/15, respectively -- then how in the world is JJ able to rule on 835 already today when VRNG still supposedly has until 2/15 to present its reply brief???
On a different board, a poster suggested that any motion that involves Rules 50, 52, or 59 do NOT require reply briefs and that once both sides have been heard at least once (i.e. one party files original motion and the opposition files their brief), then JJ could rule w/o needing to wait to see any reply brief.
I have never heard of this rule before. If true, it flies in the face of 846, so we have on record a situation akin to the story of the "irresistable ball and the immovable post" -- one of these seemingly has to give, right???
VAYK Exited Caribbean Investments for $320,000 Profit • VAYK • Jun 27, 2024 9:00 AM
North Bay Resources Announces Successful Flotation Cell Test at Bishop Gold Mill, Inyo County, California • NBRI • Jun 27, 2024 9:00 AM
Branded Legacy, Inc. and Hemp Emu Announce Strategic Partnership to Enhance CBD Product Manufacturing • BLEG • Jun 27, 2024 8:30 AM
POET Wins "Best Optical AI Solution" in 2024 AI Breakthrough Awards Program • POET • Jun 26, 2024 10:09 AM
HealthLynked Promotes Bill Crupi to Chief Operating Officer • HLYK • Jun 26, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec's Howco Short Term Department of Defense Contract Wins Will Exceed $1,100,000 for the current Quarter • BANT • Jun 25, 2024 10:00 AM