The expert testimony was due in January and the Receiver was not ready. I mean, he is only nearing his 3 year anniversary of extracting any remaining Mantria funds, so why would he be ready? Remember, it is all about the fees.
A reluctant Judge Brooke Jackson vacated the entire schedule including the trial, most likely because he observed that the Receiver and his team lacked the ability to meet the schedule for the trial date. So, I know many of you were excited last year when the trial date was announced and you only had to wait a year for something to finally happen, but now you might have to wait another year. Or, maybe, the Mantria Ponzi victims will finally do something about this incompetent Receiver and get him removed. Contact Judge Arguello who appointed John Paul Anderson or contact his firm's co-CEOs (click on name and click on contact this professional in left panel to send an email) and get him replaced, something has to change as the victims have suffered too much for far too long.
John Paul Anderson's lack of ability to lead this Receivership has been pointed out many times by this blog and is not a surprise to regular readers. Again, this Receivership has been in place for nearly 3 years and close to nothing has been demonstrated that would make us believe that the Receivership should continue with this leadership.
One thing is for sure, Tatum's counsel must be getting a good laugh at the Receiver's expense, as they wait for him to run out of Mantria's remaining money and totally give up.
Here is Judge Brooke Jackson's order:
ORDER granting 80 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order. The Court does this reluctantly. As a practical matter, we all know that an impending trial date is often the best motivator in terms of producing a settlement. However, the parties are represented by excellent counsel, and their settlement negotiations are in the hands of an excellent mediator. The case is "only" one year old, which is not old by some standards. Please contact Chambers at (303) 844-4694 to obtain new proposed trial dates, attempt to agree on a new trial date, and if you can, then agree on a new schedule that fits the trial date. If you cannot agree, then set another scheduling conference. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 01/03/2013. Text Only Entry(rbjsec. ) (Entered: 01/03/2013)