Just talked with my lawyer. You know how I "hate" to inject facts in between Spidey's lies, but I figured maybe someone here might care about the way our justice system works.
I think we all agree one risks being found in default if one doesn't show up for a court date, as Mann, Shoreline, and Whitecliff surely did not. But, as I stated previously, finding someone in default is just the first of many many steps before an action can be completed. In Connecticut, you have four months to appeal a default finding. Ironically (at least to me), had you actually appeared, argued, and lost, you wouldn't be able to put off appealing nearly that long! My lawyer thinks the federal rules are similar but wasn't sure and I haven't been able to research that yet.
Thus, it could be quite a while before Judge George gets around to signing any judgments on the above named defendants. Now, even if he does sign a judgment, they defendants can appeal (see the federal rules below). This, of course, could take many more months to resolve. Then, assuming one has exhausted all avenues of appeal, the plaintiff still has to find a way to collect.
Now here's where it gets really tricky. Suppose eight months down the line AZNT finally gets the judge to order the seizing of assets. What happens if said assets had been transferred to another party? Oh no! Now the plaintiff has to go back to court and prove that said transfer was done illegally or in violation of the court's order. And if said assets are in another country, that could take years.
Ultimately, if the defendant is truly in the wrong the plaintiff will prevail. Or at least I'd like to think so! But that's our legal system and while far from perfect it's the best in the world (insert patriotic song here).
=====
(c) Setting Aside Default.
For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b) .
Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order
<snip>
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc.
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) ; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., § 1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
www2.law.cornell.edu[jump!3A!27rule59!28b!29!27]/doc/{@644}?
- Jeff
|
