2011-07-15 – Court DENIES Plaintiffs Joint Motion to Stay Execution of Taxation of Costs, Final Judgment and Injunction Pending Disposition on Appeal
The Court DENIES the recent motion from the Plaintiffs. Their Notice of Appeal still stands.
Otherwise, what does this Document mean?
The judgment orders of the Court are maintained with no interuption, in respect to the Injunctive rulings on May 16th/27th giving Def and Intervenors —>
– immedate possession and control of AM Inc and its assets, AMPS New York Sector, and everything related to the subsidiary affilliate corporations
– legal costs of D and I’s to be reimbursed by P’s (the ruling for the reimbursement motion from the D and I’s still needs to come from the Court)
Basically this DENIAL ensures the status quo that we, the Defendants and Intervenors are “enjoying” at the conclusion of the trial. We don’t have to reverse the efforts we have been making and the progress so far attained. The Plaintiffs continue to be obligated to provide accounting for the past years, the decisions they made as a legal board since Oct 30, 2005 are not valid, etc.
The P’s wanted to regain possession and control following the Court’s decision and during the period that includes their anticipated appeal. But the Trial court is not entertaining them in this regard.
They have one final chance at reversing the injunctive order (possession and control) with the appeal court, should they continue their appeal (that deadline is coming up on July 21st).
One observer comments:
> There is not much to read. The judge merely appended an official stamp on the Ps’ motion to stay execution of taxation of costs. That stamp reads: “DENIED”. It includes some legalese about the plaintiffs needing to inform any of their concerned parties without legal representation. And at the very end of the document (the Ps’ document is another stamp stating: “This document constitutes a ruling of the court and should be treated as such.”
> One rather interesting observation about the Ps’ motion is that at the very beginning of it (Points 1 and 2), the Ps acknowledge that final judgement was entered on May 16, and they say that they intend to file a notice of appeal within 45 days of that date (which they did not). I don’t know if this influenced the judge’s decision, but it would have influenced mine if I were in his place. In any event, it does show a degree of inconsistency between the Ps’ actions and their words.
|2011-07-15 DENIED Def & Int Motion Opp Ps Jt Motion to Stay Exec of Taxation of Costs etc.pdf|