dell30rb
Final Approach
Wow I forgot about that. Wonder if all the old episodes are on netflix
Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
Wow I forgot about that. Wonder if all the old episodes are on netflix
wanttaja
En-Route
Well, Campbell does have the bar's address...he complained to them about Tony Pucillo, who was the RAH-15's attorney when Campbell sued us. Campbell also told the readers of his magazine to complain to the bar about Tony as well.
So the complaint sided an opponent disgruntled at Tony's effectiveness, and (assuming anyone listened to Zoom's plea for complaints) letters from clueless folks not associated with any of the cases...against a number of Tony's clients who sent letters praising his ethics and performance. My letter ended, "Before I met Mr. Pucillo, I had caught some of our society's anti-lawyer bias. Mr. Pucillo is a classic example of what a lawyer should be."
This was in late 1998 (my letter's dated October 13th). Tony was cleared, and the Bar representative said something like "This is one of the most bizarre cases I've ever seen."
Almost two years later, Campbell's attorney in the Airedale Press bankruptcy petitioned the judge to be released from the case. He cited Campbell's threat of a bar complaint if he didn't represent him in complaints that Campbell had defaulted on the settlement. Also cited "irreconcilable differences," just like Campbells' first two lawyers in the Cirrus case.
Ron Wanttaja
Anymouse
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 3,167
- Location
- Clinton, AR (Sometimes)
- Display Name
Display name:
Total Stud Bush Pilot
We're talking about Zoom, right?? Who the hell knows what he'll do.
wanttaja
En-Route
The "If" is the big issue. The settlement per se wasn't scheduled to be discussed at the hearing, just the "outlying" issues, such as whether Cirrus can demand that the agreement be in writing.
Even if it all went in Cirrus' favor, Campbell can still refuse to sign.
For the record, the issues scheduled to be ruled upon last Thursday were:
1) PLAINTIFF CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANTS’ IMPROPER SUSPENSION OF DEPOSITION
2) PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 2ND AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
3) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ 2ND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
4) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO (I) PLAINTIFFS SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DEFENDANT, KINDRED SPIRIT AVIATION, LLC AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DEFENDANT, JAMES CAMPBELL
5) SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF, CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION, TO NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT & DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CANCELATION (SIC) OF JUNE 18, 2013 TRIAL IN LIGHT OF SETTLEMENT
6) MOTION OF PLAINTIFF, CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION, FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANTS’ PERFORMANCE UNDER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
7) ALL PENDING MOTIONS
I'm expecting nos. 2, 3, & 4 would be moot, if there was indeed a settlement. #1 would probably be dropped as well. #5 and #6 were probably key, and #7 would include Campbell's request for sanctions against one of Cirrus' attorneys.
It was probably a lively session.
As for what Campbell will do next, hmmmm. It's quite possible that Mr. Mercer is willing to continue to represent him.
The problem is, Campbell's ROI on lawsuits has been pretty poor. Since 1998, he's sued fifteen various aviators (the RAH-15), Sun-N-Fun (Twice! Plus an appeal after the first loss), Pulsar, Rotary Air Force, Powrachute, Controlvision, and Liberty Aerospace.
Total outlay in legal costs: Unknown
Total income: $6,500 (out of court settlement with Rotary Air Force)
The fun thing is, the Cirrus vs. Campbell case is pretty well known. If Campbell *does* sue anybody in Florida, Mr. Johnson's and Mr. Higgins' names will quickly rise to the top as potential defense attorneys. Even if the two would rather not deal with Campbell again (couldn't blame them), they work for a large firm and can certainly advise another attorney in the firm as to what to expect...and what to ask during depositions.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
My dear sir, it's really pretty simple:
1. He'll spin the settlement to Cirrus so it appears to be a complete victory; and,
2. He'll continue to bad-mouth Cirrus every chance he gets; and,
3. He'll praise any Cirrus competitor to the skies, whether they deserve it or not; and,
4. He'll continue to call it good journalism.
Ron Wanttaja
Well, it has been his attorneys contention that everything is already settled.
I wonder whether the judge can simply enter an order at some point that states that everything is settled, to consider the bill of sale signed and to enter an order that ANN is also bound by the terms of the settlement and call it a day.
denverpilot
Tied Down
wanttaja
En-Route
Caught a look at the Judge's order from last week. Only motions addressed were whether the verbal settlement agreement was sufficient, and the motion for sanctions against one of Cirrus' attorneys.
Both went Cirrus' way. If ANN is to be included in the settlement, that agreement must be in writing since it isn't a party to the suit. Motion for sanctions denied.
The Judge says, the case is still scheduled for trial.
I'll post the order tonight once I get it transferred from my smart phone.
Ron Wanttaja
Both went Cirrus' way. If ANN is to be included in the settlement, that agreement must be in writing since it isn't a party to the suit. Motion for sanctions denied.
The Judge says, the case is still scheduled for trial.
I'll post the order tonight once I get it transferred from my smart phone.
Ron Wanttaja
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
This beats the soap operas my wife watches in the summer.
wanttaja
En-Route
OK, order attached.
"As the defendants take the position that they will not sign a mutual release (even of their own creation) the court must find that the settlement presented to the court is thereby incomplete, unenforceable, and voidable by either party without the delivery of general releases from the defendants and non-party."
("Non-Party": ANN).
Denied the defendant's motion for enforcement of the agreement.
Denied the plaintiff's motion compelling Defendant's performance (didn't see that on my brief reading this morning).
Mr. Mercer, Campbell's attorney, had also filed a motion for sanctions against Mr. Johnson. The motion was 22 pages long.
Only comment in the Judge's order: "The defendant's motion for sanctions against Attorney Jason Ward Johnson is hereby STRICKEN as having no basis in either statute or law."
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
Time to grab a beer and pop some popcorn. Sounds like good readin'!
wanttaja
En-Route
Man, this gets even weirder.
I've attached a copy of Campbell's request for sanctions against Cirrus attorney Johnson. Check out this quote:
No clue at all, in any of the previous court filings. But there was a fairly large gap in activity after Alan Klapmeier's deposition in early July. Other than the attorneys filing their email addresses with the court in late August, the case appeared dormant until Cirrus served interrogatories on October 29th.
My guess is that this is when those first settlement negotiations happened. It would have involved Campbell's third attorney. And, of course, he moved to withdraw from the case a bit over a month later.
If the time period is right, there's some symmetry here: The attempt at settlement happened about two months after the attorney took over, just like this last attempt occurred about two months after Campbell's fourth attorney came on board.
Ron Wanttaja
I've attached a copy of Campbell's request for sanctions against Cirrus attorney Johnson. Check out this quote:
"By way of background, in 2012, the parties themselves reached a settlement agreement, shook on it, and felt the case was resolved. But, as subsequent drafts of settlement agreement language became more egregious and disagreeable, the 2012 settlement fell apart and this case and litigation drove on..."
Hokey smoke, Bullwinkle: Cirrus and Campbell have been through this before.
No clue at all, in any of the previous court filings. But there was a fairly large gap in activity after Alan Klapmeier's deposition in early July. Other than the attorneys filing their email addresses with the court in late August, the case appeared dormant until Cirrus served interrogatories on October 29th.
My guess is that this is when those first settlement negotiations happened. It would have involved Campbell's third attorney. And, of course, he moved to withdraw from the case a bit over a month later.
If the time period is right, there's some symmetry here: The attempt at settlement happened about two months after the attorney took over, just like this last attempt occurred about two months after Campbell's fourth attorney came on board.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
All right, two questions...one informational, one rhetorical.
The informational one is for the lawyers out there:
Is this as bad a "burn" as it sounds? The Judge isn't noting flaws in logic, or precedents, or subtle legal points. He's flat-out saying, "the motion completely ignores the law."
OK, the rhetorical one:
To quote an old Mel Brooks movie: "What in the Wild World of Sports is going on here?"
I can see an unwillingness to sign documents prepared by the other side. I can see lodging complaints if you think the other side played fast-and-loose with the turnover of the aircraft.
But to flat-out refuse to put the settlement agreement to paper, even if allowed to write it yourself?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
I can think of only three reasons why this might be happening. First, it might some sort of principled stand regarding a point of law. Noble, I suppose, but the fact is, it's costing his own client money and aggravation, not to mention potentially ticking-off the judge. And it seems to me that if Campbell said, "Stop that, finish the settlement" it would happen.
The second potential reason is that the verbal language somehow DID leave a loophole that would permit Campbell to sue Cirrus later on his own terms. Note that this is the stated reason why Cirrus demanded written releases.
The third reason? Campbell may have second thoughts on the settlement. He may have realized how it would make him look, vis-a-vis his public statements about not quitting. Or Jupiter is in the seventh house, or whatever.
The next two weeks are probably key. Either we'll see the judge asked to buy off on a negotiated settlement, or Cirrus will push ahead. If that's the case, we'll probably see Campbell scheduled to complete his deposition, along with a court hearing date to determine if the NTSB hearing is out-of-bounds.
Campbell may try to dodge the deposition, but the fact is it's just five weeks until the pre-trial hearing. Cirrus may just say, "We'll cover the NTSB hearing at the trial." Let Campbell say, "Go to Hell" to the judge, or offer to have the FBI arrest him.
My guess right now? He'll no-show at the trial and claim he lost "due to legal trickery."
Wonder if Judge Skinner will get the ANN vs. Cirrus case?
Ron Wanttaja
The informational one is for the lawyers out there:
Is this as bad a "burn" as it sounds? The Judge isn't noting flaws in logic, or precedents, or subtle legal points. He's flat-out saying, "the motion completely ignores the law."
OK, the rhetorical one:
To quote an old Mel Brooks movie: "What in the Wild World of Sports is going on here?"
I can see an unwillingness to sign documents prepared by the other side. I can see lodging complaints if you think the other side played fast-and-loose with the turnover of the aircraft.
But to flat-out refuse to put the settlement agreement to paper, even if allowed to write it yourself?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
I can think of only three reasons why this might be happening. First, it might some sort of principled stand regarding a point of law. Noble, I suppose, but the fact is, it's costing his own client money and aggravation, not to mention potentially ticking-off the judge. And it seems to me that if Campbell said, "Stop that, finish the settlement" it would happen.
The second potential reason is that the verbal language somehow DID leave a loophole that would permit Campbell to sue Cirrus later on his own terms. Note that this is the stated reason why Cirrus demanded written releases.
The third reason? Campbell may have second thoughts on the settlement. He may have realized how it would make him look, vis-a-vis his public statements about not quitting. Or Jupiter is in the seventh house, or whatever.
The next two weeks are probably key. Either we'll see the judge asked to buy off on a negotiated settlement, or Cirrus will push ahead. If that's the case, we'll probably see Campbell scheduled to complete his deposition, along with a court hearing date to determine if the NTSB hearing is out-of-bounds.
Campbell may try to dodge the deposition, but the fact is it's just five weeks until the pre-trial hearing. Cirrus may just say, "We'll cover the NTSB hearing at the trial." Let Campbell say, "Go to Hell" to the judge, or offer to have the FBI arrest him.
My guess right now? He'll no-show at the trial and claim he lost "due to legal trickery."
Wonder if Judge Skinner will get the ANN vs. Cirrus case?
Ron Wanttaja
The time period of two months is easily explained by the new attorney finally understanding the futility of the case, the challenges of his defendent and the fact that retainer is about to run out
Utah-Jay
Pre-takeoff checklist
22 Pages of a sanction motion with no basis????
Sounds like the lawyer who would know better and should have told his client it had no basis is just soaking Campbell for the hourly cash.
Campbell must be plain (pun intended) STUPID
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sounds like the lawyer who would know better and should have told his client it had no basis is just soaking Campbell for the hourly cash.
Campbell must be plain (pun intended) STUPID
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I get the feeling, reading the legal documents, especially the motion for sanctions, that they were drafted by Campbell himself. His attorney probably toned down and "legalized" the language some, but many non lawyerly phrases survive the edits. E.g., "shook on it," "right there, on the spot," "wordsmithing," "pull the plug," "popped in," "walk away deal," "play more games," "play ball," etc., etc.
guardrail
Pre-takeoff checklist
This is my non-lawyering armchair coaching view, I think what the judge is saying is that Campbell agreed to the release in the original verbal agreement and even pointed to it in the transcript, that's their own creation he's referencing. So now that they are refusing to sign a release (of their own creation - referencing the verbal agreement) the settlement is incomplete.
guardrail
Pre-takeoff checklist
Another thought came to mind, although I don't think Campbell is this smart. What if he's doing all this so that when he loses he's got an out to blame the big bad court? i.e. He can write an article saying they had agreed on terms with Cirrus getting everything he wanted (hence he won) and the court refused to allow the agreement to be completed.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Is the 22 page complaint available too?
edit: Nevermind, found it.
edit: Nevermind, found it.
Last edited:
livitup
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 357
- Location
- Southern Northern Virginia
- Display Name
Display name:
livitup
Yeah, pretty much, but only on Mercer personally, not on the allegations in the motion. If the motion had any basis or legal foundation, the judge would have ruled on it. He could have denied the motion, but that would still be a ruling. Instead, the motion was stricken, which means it is removed from the case file, and it is as if the motion never existed. After reading the motion, I'm not surprised. It makes no reference to any order, rule, law, or precedent which has supposedly been violated. It is not addressing any "point of law". It's basically a gigantic whine to the court, and I'm really surprised Mercer signed it. He should know better.
All of the above does not mean that the actions alleged in the motion are not true (they might be), nor does it suggest that if they are true, that sanctions are not appropriate (they might be). But the motion submitted simply is not posing, nor addressing, any legal questions that the judge can rule on. So it is *vanished* as if it never existed.
Nothing prevents Mercer from refiling, should he so choose, on these points, but he'd be well advised to do it in a legitimate legal pleading that spells out exactly what rules or laws the opposing council has broken.
I'm with you here. I asked the same question two weeks ago, and you pointed out that Zoom might be trying to reserve the right for ANN to sue Cirrus down the road, which made sense at the time. But when I re-read the transcript, ANN is specifically named as one of the parties of the settlement (even if they are not a party to the current lawsuit). So, by my reading, if they agree to the settlement, as stated orally, ANN can not sue Cirrus either. So why the defense would be so unwilling to sign the waivers, I have no idea.
And while I have absolutely nothing to base this opinion on other than the court records you've posted, I get the feeling that Mercer might be just a little on the BPD side himself... The way he is handling this case is so bizarre that it can't simply be that he's taking direction from Zoom. At the end of the day, it's his name on all the filings, and if Zoom were feeding me (and insisting on) this particular strategy, I'd have fired him as a customer long ago. Mercer has his reputation to consider... unless that doesn't matter to him.
If I understood the judges order correctly, ANN as a non-party to the underlying suit, cannot be bound to the terms of the settlement unless it is put in writing.
Two prior law firms in the same matter figured that one out after a short while.
I had much the same thought. They really do seem perfect for each other...
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
Absolutely outstanding write-up...thanks. Didn't realize that Mercer wasn't pointing out the applicable laws and statutes until you pointed it out. I can see now why the judge just threw it out...it expects the judge to chase down and quote the applicable portions of the code.
There's one other thing that comes to mind, though it's pretty weak. Cirrus needs samples of Campbell's signature to prove the purchase agreement isn't a forgery. Campbell has refused to provide signature samples in response to Cirrus' discovery requests. If he wants ANN to sue Cirrus, he needs to starve Cirrus' forensic specialist of signature samples. Hence, the insistence that the verbal agreement should be all that's necessary.
Weak, I know... but it might make sense, if one is sufficiently paranoid.
I've attached Cirrus' motion to compel Campbell to provide signature samples.... it gives the history of the requests. (Don't remember if I had posted it before, but suspect no one here will object to another juicy tidbit.
. Cirrus also filed another Request for Production in March, specifically to get signature samples.I dunno. Like I've said before, I don't think Mercer is doing that bad of a job (though your pointing out the issues in his request for sanctions does make me pause). I think it's his job to apply the appropriate legal veneer to whatever the client wants, within the limits of the law, of course. We don't know how occupied he is; Campbell may amount to being a major client for him.
While Campbell certainly has a history of not paying his lawyers, there HAVE been instances where an attorney has come back and represented Campbell in a later case. Don't think that would have happened if Campbell hadn't paid the earlier bills.
Though he has had 20 different lawyers in the past 20 years....
Ron Wanttaja
There once was a lawyer, we'll call Mr. Gray.
He had but two clients and they wouldn't pay.
wanttaja
En-Route
Notice of hearing filed. No details on the date or purpose, yet. If we see additional motions filed, the case is probably still on. Otherwise, it's probably to get a settlement approved.
Ron Wanttaja
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
wanttaja
En-Route
Well, I think we can eliminate Option #2:
05/03/2013 Motion for Recusal -Defendants' Verified Motion to Disqualify the Trial Judge
05/03/2013 Test/Proceedings/Transcript - Exhibit C - Defendants' Verified Motion to Disqualify the Trial Judge
I figure if Campbell is trying to get the judge removed, he and Cirrus *probably* haven't come to agreement.
Man, this beats "Perry Mason" all ta heck....
Ron Wanttaja
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,057
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
According to this document, the trial judge must rule "immediately" on the Motion to Disqualify...
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/...348/Filed_03-28-2011_Respondent_Exhibit_2.pdf
This is the sort of circus act one would expect from Campbell...Mercer appears to be well suited to Zoom's histrionics.
I think this going to be an allegation that the judge engaged in ex parte communications with Cirrus' attorney about the scheduling controversy of last week.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/...348/Filed_03-28-2011_Respondent_Exhibit_2.pdf
This is the sort of circus act one would expect from Campbell...Mercer appears to be well suited to Zoom's histrionics.
I think this going to be an allegation that the judge engaged in ex parte communications with Cirrus' attorney about the scheduling controversy of last week.
Last edited:
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
Given all the facts that Cirrus and Campbell are likely to produce at trial, a different judge isn't going to change the final outcome. It appears to be a pointless move that I assume would, at most, only change the trial date a bit.
6 months and two sets of attorneys for zoom.
Some motions are just filed to have something else to anchor a frivolous appeal to. It's all about running up the clock.
If I understand it right, Cirrus has their plane back. What they have spent in lawyers fees to do so is spent. From now on its a different calculation, spend X amount to get Y amount of expenses back.
wanttaja
En-Route
It's certainly a possibility.
Note that the second filing on Friday was Exhibit C to go with the Motion of Recusal, and is listed as "Test/Proceedings/Transcript". I wonder if this is a transcript (or partial transcript) of the 25 April hearing? It could be quoting a section of the transcript where the judge made some sort of reference to separate communications with Cirrus.
Or...well, this is a fun thing to think about: Recall how Mercer's motion for sanctions against Cirrus' attorney was stricken...not just denied, but wiped out as if it never was filed? It sounds (again, I'm not a lawyer) that this was fundamentally flawed, legally. Could the judge have, ummm, "expressed himself forcefully" to Mr. Mercer regarding the quality of this motion?
We've seen several variations of, "Judge, he was mean to me" claims in Mercer's filings regarding Mr. Johnson. Could this just be an escalation of that tactic?
One of the first such complaints made by Campbell's current lawyer was over an alleged warning from Cirrus' attorney that the judge was getting irritated at Campbell's delay tactics. If the allegation had any sort of truth before, it should be doubled, now...with an apparent turn-down of a good settlement just because the client refuses to sign a written version of what he'd already verbally agreed to.
Might the judge have expressed an opinion about THAT at the last hearing, as well?
Weilke's probably right that Campbell's just trying to lay the groundwork for an appeal.
Anyway, I intend to order these later papers, but won't be able to do it until late next week. Quite possibly, other filings will be made by then.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
Looks like the Judge has ruled on the motion for recusal:
05/08/2013 Order (Generic) on defs' amended verified motion to disqualify the trial judge
Cirrus also filed a response earlier this week. Now that I'm back from my trip, I'll order these plus the amended motion and exhibits....should have them by Friday.
Ron Wanttaja
05/08/2013 Order (Generic) on defs' amended verified motion to disqualify the trial judge
Cirrus also filed a response earlier this week. Now that I'm back from my trip, I'll order these plus the amended motion and exhibits....should have them by Friday.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
Had a glitch in ordering the papers from the Clerk's office; they were snail-mailed instead of emailed. Should have them today or tomorrow, will post the results then.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
Thanks!
wanttaja
En-Route
Nope. "Defendants' Amended Motion is legally insufficient." Ruling attached.
I have Campbell's Amended Motion and the three exhibits; as hoped, two of the exhibits are the actual transcripts of the court hearings on the 9 and 25th of April.
The 25th is a hoot. "You think an appeal is going to be free, Mr. Campbell?" "Any additional litigation that's taking place here, Mr. Mercer, I believe is due to your actions and your client's inability to sign any kind of release in this matter...." "...and the fact that you don't want to do it leads me to believe that there's some ulterior motive here..."
The judge also makes clear that he expects this case to be tried on the 18th of June...one month from today, in fact.
I'll scan in the transcript and post it, but the copies I got are extremely light and may take some work.
Also, I obtained a copy of the Notice of Hearing for the hearing scheduled for this Tuesday (21 May). They've got one hour scheduled, and the motions to be heard include:
1. Cirrus' motion for expenses in connection with Campbell's improper suspension of deposition
2. Cirrus' motion to compel discovery (handwriting samples for the forensic analyst)
3. Cirrus' objection and motion for protective order (regarding Campbell planning on deposing Cirrus employees that had nothing to do with the aircraft deal).
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
OK, three files are attached: Campbell's amended motion to disqualify the judge, Cirrus' response to it, and the transcript of the 25 April hearing.
This transcript was Exhibit C in Campbell's filing; Exhibit A was the transcript of the attempted verbal settlement, and Exhibit B was the transcript of the 9 April hearing. I'd already posted those in other messages.
Some comments from the Judge:
"You can't get rid of promissory notes and other obligations without further written documentation."
"How can I enforce a settlement against ANN when they're not even a party before my Court?"
"Both your motions to enforce this settlement are denied because there is no settlement here."
"It's no longer a motion for sanctions [against Cirrus]. It's a stricken motion for sanctions."
"You've also added in your motion for sanctions without clearing it with the Court. And I thought we had a discussion about you adding things to my calendar without running it through my JA last time."
Ron Wanttaja
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Holy cow. The judge is very angry it would appear. Unfortunately, he's actually playing into Zoom's hands for both appeal and claims of unfairness by acting as such.
Refusing to allow evidentiary testimony on the grounds that the date was not scheduled as an evidentiary hearing, when it actually was, is just bad juju from the judge, IMHO.
Refusing to allow evidentiary testimony on the grounds that the date was not scheduled as an evidentiary hearing, when it actually was, is just bad juju from the judge, IMHO.