The National Enquirer reports…

Expect a real courtroom drama for GRETCHEN ROSSI and her “Real Housewives of Orange County” co-stars if her ex-boyfriend JAY PHOTOGLOU has his way!

After three years of slugging it out in an ugly “he said/she said” legal battle over their relationship, the two are set to face off in a civil trial, and sources say Jay plans to subpoena several of Gretchen’s former and current castmates to testify against her.

“RHOC” stars TAMRA BARNEY, PEGGY TANOUS, LYNNE CURTIN and are among those expected to take the stand, and if they do, they’ll have to tell the truth about when Gretchen’s romance with Jay actually began.

The blonde bombshell claims to have been engaged to millionaire JEFF BEITZEL when she joined “RHOC” in early 2008. Beitzel was suffering from leukemia at the time, and died in September 2008.

Their relationship and Gretchen’s tender bedside care for Beitzel as his health deteriorated was a major part of her story line during her inaugural season on Bravo’s “RHOC” in 2008.

Gretchen insists Jay, who works in the auto industry, was nothing more than a “family friend” back then, while he contends that he was Gretchen’s real-life boyfriend during filming. In 2009, he even told The ENQUIRER: “She (Gretchen) spent her days at the hospital with her dying fiance, but her nights with me.”

Not so, says Gretchen. In 2009 she declared that “Jay Photoglou is nothing more than a thief and liar. Jay and I had a short-lived relationship BEFORE Jeff and I dated.”

Soon after, Gretchen filed a restraining order against Jay — he says to keep him quiet. That was dismissed, and Gretchen was ordered to pay his attorney’s fees.

But then he slapped her with a civil lawsuit for defamation, and she hit back with a countersuit. With their civil trial looming, Gretchen recently gave a deposition in which she changed her story about when she actually met Jay. She also admitted that she spent time with Jay on at least four separate occasions after she got engaged to her now-deceased fiance. But when pressed further by Jay’s attorney, she clammed up.

“No matter what, Gretchen is not going to like it when her fellow housewives have to spill the beans about her relationship with Jay Photoglou,” said an insider. “I’m sure no matter what they say, it won’t help Gretchen’s case.”

Is this the moment we’ve all been waiting for…the moment of truth?
Check back soon, this is getting really good!

Update on Jay Photoglou and Gretchen Rossi…

History repeats itself?
Gretchen Rossi once again failed to show up for her scheduled September 8th Debtor’s Exam court date. If you recall, she was a no show as well in April 2010 and a bench warrant was issued. Yesterday’s judge issued a warrant for her arrest at $2,500. It has been continued until September 15, if she fails to appear by then…looks like she will be arrested.

On a side note, I wonder if Lynne Curtin does designer cuffs, handcuffs?

I have had a few inquiries requesting updates on Jay Photoglou and Gretchen Rossi.

Gretchen is scheduled to appear for a the debtor is ordered to appear in Court
to answer the judgment creditor’s questions
about the existence and location of their salary,
bank accounts, property, and anything else
that could be used to pay the judgment… debtor’s examination on September 8th. Although this is a different order, it is the same procedure she was scheduled to appear for in April 2010. If you recall, Gretchen did not show up, and a bench warrant was issued.

I believe Rossi is also scheduled to be in court on that same day regarding the lawsuit filed by, Ron Ann Myers, her former make up artist and business associate.

Busy day!

Oh puleeze!

Gretchen Rossi of the Bravo hit television series Real Housewives of Orange County, is asking a judge to muzzle her ex-boyfriend, Jay Photoglou from talking to the media about their ongoing legal battle, in which they are both suing each other for defamation, libel, among the claims.
Rossi is seeking a protective order which would prevent Jay from discussing or disclosing “any information obtained through pretrial discovery, including her deposition,” the court docs state.

Read full story at Rader Online

in defamation case against Jay Photoglou

Abandonment: to give up; discontinue; withdraw from

Appeal: a legal proceeding by which a case is brought before a higher court for review of the decision of a lower court, an application (as to a recognized authority) for corroboration, vindication, or decision

…I guess it was time to sink or swim. In my opinion…smartest move yet!

Team Jay!

Court records for Orange County indicate there was a Case Management Conference yesterday at 8:30 a.m. in the case of Jay Photoglou VS. Gretchen Rossi. A Jury Trial has been scheduled for 9/12/11, this is 1 day before the 3 year anniversary of Jeff Beitzel’s passing.

Stay tuned…

Today was court day in the case of GRETCHEN ROSSI vs JAY PHOTOGLOU. The tentative ruling has been made the final ruling:

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied, since it does not appear that documents in the other 2 actions are relevant to the motion before the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of enforcement of judgment is denied. The motion is premature as no judgment has yet been entered. It is also denied on the merits as moving party has not shown that a stay is warranted based on the factors set forth in CCP 918.5(b). Defendant to give notice.
CAL. CCP. CODE § 918.5
(b) In exercising its discretion under this section, the court shall consider all of the following:
(1) The likelihood of the judgment debtor prevailing in the other action.
(2 ) The amount of the judgment of the judgment creditor as compared to the amount of the probable recovery of the judgment debtor in the action on the disputed claim.
(3) The financial ability of the judgment creditor to satisfy the judgment if a judgment is rendered against the judgment creditor in the action on the disputed claim.

Tomorrow is court day in the case of GRETCHEN ROSSI vs JAY PHOTOGLOU, however, the following  tentative ruling has been made:

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied, since it does not appear that documents in the other 2 actions are relevant to the motion before the Court.  Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of enforcement of judgment is denied.  The motion is premature as no judgment has yet been entered.  It is also denied on the merits as moving party has not shown that a stay is warranted based on the factors set forth in CCP 918.5(b).  Defendant to give notice.

CAL. CCP. CODE § 918.5

(b) In exercising its discretion under this section, the court shall consider all of the following:

(1) The likelihood of the judgment debtor prevailing in the other action.

(2 ) The amount of the judgment of the judgment creditor as compared to the amount of the probable recovery of the judgment debtor in the action on the disputed claim.

(3) The financial ability of the judgment creditor to satisfy the judgment if a judgment is rendered against the judgment creditor in the action on the disputed claim.