Candace Conti v. Watchtower | March 11, 2013 | Watchtower Society Appeal Dismissed For Failure To File Opening Brief (page 3)

Gayle

That's fine that they needed another extension, as two extensions were already requested and granted. A last minute, ("new light") info came up? But, why the "no show?."

GoneAwol

They could be stalling untill the 15 cents missionary tax comes rolling in..

This is where the WTS is presently at. Notice it says "may dismiss the appeal" (bringing in 144001's post). There's still time for the WTS, if they're still not ready with their brief, to ask for another extension if there is "good cause." However, if that further extension happens, it looks like it would be the WTS's last chance - they would HAVE to submit their opening brief by the end of the new extended period. (Somebody correct me if that's not right.)

http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_220

2013 California Rules of Court

Rule 8.220. Failure to file a brief

(a) Notice to file

If a party fails to timely file an appellant's opening brief or a respondent's brief, the reviewing court clerk must promptly notify the party by mail that the brief must be filed within 15 days after the notice is mailed and that if the party fails to comply, the court may impose one of the following sanctions:

(1)If the brief is an appellant's opening brief, the court may dismiss the appeal;

(2)If the brief is a respondent's brief, the court may decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant.

(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2008; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(b) Combined brief

A party that is both an appellant and a respondent under rule 8.216 may file its combined respondent's brief and appellant's reply brief within the period specified in the notice under (a).

(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(c) Sanction

If a party fails to file the brief as specified in a notice under (a), the court may impose the sanction specified in the notice.

(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2008.)

(d) Extension of time

Within the period specified in the notice under (a), a party may apply to the presiding justice for an extension of that period for good cause. If the extension is granted and the brief is not filed within the extended period, the court may impose the sanction under (c) without further notice.

Rule 8.220 amended effective January 1, 2008; repealed and adopted as rule 17 effective January 1, 2002; previously amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007.

problemaddict

I think it is of note that the counsel for the WT is local in California and quite savvy having a family owned and run succesful legal practice for quite some time. In addition, there are contemporaries of his locally that do NOTHING but serve as legal counsel for the branch from their homes in a semi-retired capacity. I am sure he intends to follow through with the appeal, and will do so when they feel they are ready. Of that I have no doubt.

besty

lie, cry, deny and delay

its how they roll.

for an endtimes cult they are in no hurry to conclude this case.

Chaserious

Conti's lawyer may have agreed to the extensions also. We don't know all of the facts.

DaCheech

arent they loosing bond insurance in the meantime?

nugget

They are dealing with new territory here so it is no wonder they are not the slick machine we were expecting.

They will keep at it though you can guarantee that.

tiki

i'm not really up on this legal stuff - but are they just stalling hoping it will all miraculously disappear? whatever.........i am very pleased that in at least one case justice has been served to date. let them pay up - candace conti is only one of far too many.

Band on the Run

When Rick Simons says it is over I will believe it. You need a CA lawyer to interpret the results. Reading isolated portions does not help. Take it from me--a brief comments and I thought I was ready to be a Supreme Court justice.

Candace Conti v. Watchtower | March 11, 2013 | Watchtower Society Appeal Dismissed For Failure To File Opening Brief