I went back and reread this thing and I do believe that your right BDBionic. There hasn't been any ruling on a motion yet, just a stipulation to the upcoming motion![]()
I went back and reread this thing and I do believe that your right BDBionic. There hasn't been any ruling on a motion yet, just a stipulation to the upcoming motion![]()
Artist/Painter and Webmaster of Huskyhunks.com.
Ok.. so has the FSC explained to anyone why they've changed their stance from a TRO to a PI?
It's does say: "The parties, by through the their respective counsel, hereby enter into the following stipulation regarding the Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order. The parties agree as follows: 1. The Court will forego ruling on the pending motion for temporary restraining order, treat the motion as a motion for preliminary injunction, and will take up scheduling matters at the time of hearing for temporary restraining order on June 23, 2005, 1:30 P.M. 2. From the date of this agreement until no later than 30 days after the date of the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction or the date of a decision on the motion, whichever comes first, unless otherwise extended by the Court,"
Maybe the FSC has switched it's stance to a PI and that's why they need more time... haven't they had time enough to be ready for this court date?
Bookmarks