Replies to post #45910 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[HighRider]

Sorry to tell you, you're confusing different cases in the listing you presented. The 2009 prefix references other cases.

[downsideup]

The problem with yours is...

You are reporting information for OTHER cases as if they applied to CLYW somehow... which they don't.

CLYW's case is # 201002545

So, that case # 200921150 settled doesn't mean anything to us.
And, that case # 200968800 was disposed of through mediation... who here cares about that case ???

Here' what the court website shows for activity in the CLYW case #201002545:

================================================================

Court 333RD DISTRICT COURT Case Number 201002545
Style CALYPSO WIRELESS INC (DELAWARE CORPORATION) VS DAIC, DRAGO
Case Type BREACH OF CONTRACT Status READY DOCKET
Date Description
01/29/2010 LAW DAY DOCKET TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RE-SET
02/12/2010 LAW DAY DOCKET TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PASSED
06/04/2010 LAW DAY DOCKET MOTION FOR PREFERENTIAL SETTING HEARD (NO RULING MADE)
06/07/2010 TRIAL COORDINATORS DOCKET DISMISS FOR WANT OF PROSECU-MTN TO (TRCP 165A) PASSED
07/16/2010 LAW DAY DOCKET STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING HELD
09/17/2010 LAW DAY DOCKET SUMMARY JUDGMENT - MOTION FOR FINAL (TRCP 166A) PASSED
10/29/2010 LAW DAY DOCKET PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE HEARING HELD
10/29/2010 LAW DAY DOCKET MTN TO TRANSFER CASE TO ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT HEARING HELD
11/15/2010 TRIAL SETTING TRIAL ON MERITS NOT REACHED
02/07/2011 TRIAL SETTING TRIAL ON MERITS RE-SET
04/01/2011 LAW DAY DOCKET MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERTS GRANTED
04/01/2011 LAW DAY DOCKET LEAVE TO FILE PLEADING DENIED
04/15/2011 LAW DAY DOCKET STRIKE PLEAD - MTN TO (TRCP 168) PASSED
05/27/2011 LAW DAY DOCKET STRIKE PLEAD - MTN TO (TRCP 168) RE-SET
06/27/2011 TRIAL SETTING TRIAL ON MERITS RE-SET
07/08/2011 LAW DAY DOCKET STRIKE PLEAD - MTN TO (TRCP 168) RE-SET
08/05/2011 LAW DAY DOCKET STRIKE PLEAD - MTN TO (TRCP 168) PASSED
08/15/2011 TRIAL SETTING TRIAL ON MERITS

All that you can see from the Civil Court Docket Inquiry "Activity Results" page... is what looks like more of the same ole same ole... more delay.

The court says the motion under consideration was "passed" just like it has been before... and it doesn't say anything else.