[sinkspur]

But, Whittemore ruled on the issue of a de novo trial IMMEDIATELY and did it on the conclusion that based on the OLD COURT info (wasn't supposed to be considered), that the Schinlder might not win. Dumb, or deliberately malicious to stall.

He had to consider the old court info because Gibbs brought it into the new pleadings.

A judge has to consider what is before him.

The Schindlers are not going to win. It is obvious. I don't think the 11th is going to overturn Whittmore.

[Torie]

Gibbs brought it into the new pleadings

Gibbs should have copied and pasted the old pleadings as it were. That is what de novo is all about. Gibbs had stale pleadings based on something other than de novo.

This de novo matter may raise its own consitutional issues. I don't know. Having two bites out of the apple in a civil case, is well, rather novel. But that is not relevant to an injunction motion.