Rogers brought an Application seeking the return of $876,095.04 allegedly paid in error to the respondents.
At a case conference, the respondents objected to the presiding judge scheduling or hearing the Application, arguing the judge was acting as a case management judge under Rule 77.06.
The court held that Rule 77 did not apply but voluntarily declined to hear the Application.
The court proceeded to set a timetable for the Application and scheduled the respondents' motion to consolidate the Application with an existing action between the parties.
