We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Love your work Oopsi. Good to have so many pros on this board.
He would have had to agree it with the other side - hence the short time frame. Generally when the parties agree the extension the process is easier and unless you get a really controlling judge the court just rubber stamps it without asking too many questions as to why. If the defendant hadn’t agreed then SN would have needed to give reasons when applying to court.
I disagree. Yes it is a small extension but most extensions tend to be small - on or around two weeks is usually the norm. However, in these circumstances, you would only agree to extend for two reasons. You are effectively dealing with a litigant in person and don’t want to seem unreasonable before the judge. I think we are long past that. Don’t forget that Hope would have to sign off on agreeing any extension. Given the acrimony that has gone on and that Hopes business is taking over distressed companies I don’t think he cares too much about being reasonable. If I was advising him I know what I’d be saying - no extension. Your opponent is on the ropes. Go for the kill. The reason he may have been persuaded to agree an extension is there is a chance (only a chance) of resolving the matter sooner rather than later. I’ve given extensions on that basis in the past.
Oopsi does the facet fact it is a short extension indicate anything like would SN had to specify an extension date in letter and would he have to give a reason for extension ie to finalise new counsel
Thanks
its a small extension.
Nothing to read into about it
Thanks Earsbern...it was just the text entry on pacermonitor that said 'Letter from Steve C. Nicandros....(DeClerq.William).
Granted should read agreed
Thanks Earsbern. The interesting part is that the Defendant’s have granted the extension. Litigators are bloodhounds - they go in for the kill. Given the bad blood that has passed It is unusual for the defendant to agree this. Wonder why?
No mention of Declerq or any FRR counsel.
Tsbs - This is the fiduciary case, where FRR are suing Hope.
oh. seisprocessor (11.48) suggested it was submitted by Declerq.
ODR - The letter appears to have been signed and sent directly by SN. No sign of any involvement by legal counsel.
One wouldn't have thought it would take too long as they wanted to drop it without prejudice.
It's interesting that DeClerq has sent this as aren't they the counsel who pulled out. I assumed that might be owing to an unpaid bill but presumably they have been paid if they're now prepared to submit SN's letter...
cant find a new council that will work for nothing ;)
or negotiating terms and going through the finer points of the case with a new one and need a bit longer (must be some evidence of that for OMF to let them have longer I guess)
Cannot copy this letter directly, so have to report.
The headline is 'Agreement to Extend Deadline to Designate Substitute Counsel'.
The letter from SN states that on 05/11/19, plaintiffs (FRR) were granted 30 days, to 04/12/19, to secure replacement counsel. On 04/12/19, defendants (OMF) counsel agreed to SN's request to extend the deadline to 15/12/19.
That's it. So FRR appear to still be active in this case.
Chris, it's document no. 60. I can see it sitting there on my bookmarked page, but when I log in to pacermonitor.com i'm not yet able to see it. Perhaps it will be available to download at the weekend. The letter from SN is sent by his attorneys DeClercq, William.
anyone seen SN letter yet ?
Can someone with access post the document if possible please.
Thank you in advance
A new letter from Steve Nicandros has appeared in the Judge Seeborg case - dated Thursday 5th Dec!