You know that little case involving some damage to a few
However, on the eve of trial, there may possibly be a medical issue involving Peter Halmos, necessitating an emergency motion for continuance.
We wish Mr. Halmos well.
Meanwhile, the Court has denied the latest motion for sanctions, this time by Defendants, and the Court adds its usual rhetorical flourish:
The Court finds there is one simple fact missing from this motion that requires denial of same ... there is simply no showing that plaintiffs, in fact, had these documents in their possession. Suggesting that they must have ... should have ... gotta have ... doesn't change that fact.The Court then concludes:
This is a motion that is on the borderline of being in bad faith.
The Court has previously warned defendant not to continue to attempt "to kill an ant with a shotgun". To the extent that defendant ASSUMES the Court has any prejudices against plaintiffs it would be wise to understand the differences between disagreements with who runs this Court verses a lack of objectivity regarding the case.Exactly!
When you ASSUME the Court has any prejudices against plaintiffs it would be wise to understand the differences between disagreements with who runs this Court verses a lack of objectivity regarding the case, you make an ASS out of U and.....well, I'm gonna stop now.