Laserfiche WebLink
represented, and, to get DRMS to accommodate his schedule,and that of prospective <br /> new counsel. <br /> DRMS's argument that Beckwith "chose" to attend a mock trial in a distant <br /> county on the date of the hearing is preposterous. As anyone who has done <br /> litigation knows,a mock trial requires the presence of parties,witnesses, expert <br /> witnesses and attorneys,and usually involves locating and scheduling a mock jury <br /> who will hear an initial rendition of the case.This is not a trivial undertaking <br /> involving many players and,as a scheduling conflict,is is real, major and one at <br /> which attendance is imperative. In addition,Mr. Beckwith informed counsel for <br /> DRMS that he could not enter an appearance as he could not be present at the August <br /> meeting. This did not eliminate DRMS's duty to attempt to accommodate his schedule <br /> and that of prospective new counsel to allow Fontanari representation. <br /> F. FONTANRIS MOTION FOR RECONDISERATION AND FOR <br /> DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLOSELY FOLLOWED THE <br /> CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS RULES <br /> Construction Materials Rule 2.9 provides for a petition for reconsideration of its <br /> decisions. Such petitions must set forth, "a clear and thorough explanation of the grounds <br /> justifying reconsideration, including, but not limited to new and relevant facts that were not <br /> known at the time of the hearing and the explanation why the facts were not known at the time of <br /> the hearing." As the Rule is suggestive, and not restrictive, the Board is permitted to reconsider <br /> and reopen a Board proceeding under circumstances necessary, including where the underlying <br /> Board proceeding failed to comply with fundamental principles of due process. In major part, the <br /> matters which Fontanari could have presented at the hearing if represented at the hearing is <br /> 10 <br />