DOCSLIB.ORG

D. Kan. Rule 83.5.3(E)(2)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
D. Kan. Rule 83.5.3(E)(2) RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS PART I SCOPE OF RULES PART II COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION; PROCESS; SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND ORDERS PART III PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS PART IV PARTIES PART V DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY PART VI TRIALS PART VII JUDGMENT PART VIII PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES PART IX SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; MAGISTRATE JUDGES PART X DISTRICT COURT AND CLERK PART XI GENERAL PROVISIONS PART XII ATTORNEYS AND BAR DISCIPLINE PART XIII REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PART XIV RULES APPLICABLE TO BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PART XV RULES APPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL CASES PART XVI STANDING ORDERS Effective July 19, 2021 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ORDER OF ADOPTION Pursuant to the authority vested in this Court by Rule and Statute: IT IS ORDERED that the rules attached hereto and designated “Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas” are adopted and shall become effective July 19, 2021 and shall supersede the Court’s existing rules which are repealed effective July 19, 2021. DATED this 19th day of July 2021. FOR THE COURT s/ Julie A. Robinson JULIE A. ROBINSON Chief Judge ATTEST: s/ Timothy M. O’Brien TIMOTHY M. O’BRIEN CLERK OF COURT 2 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CHIEF JUDGE Julie A. Robinson 511 Robert J. Dole U.S. Courthouse 500 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 DISTRICT JUDGE SENIOR JUDGE Eric F. Melgren Sam A. Crow 414 U.S. Courthouse 430 U.S. Courthouse 401 North Market Street 444 Southeast Quincy Street Wichita, KS 67202 Topeka, KS 66683 DISTRICT JUDGE SENIOR JUDGE Daniel D. Crabtree John W. Lungstrum 628 Robert J. Dole 517 Robert J. Dole U.S. Courthouse U.S. Courthouse 500 State Avenue 500 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 Kansas City, KS 66101 DISTRICT JUDGE SENIOR JUDGE John W. Broomes Kathryn H. Vratil 232 U.S. Courthouse 529 Robert J. Dole 401 North Market Street U.S. Courthouse Wichita, KS 67202 500 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 DISTRICT JUDGE Holly L. Teeter 537 U.S. Courthouse 500 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 DISTRICT JUDGE Toby Crouse 405 U.S. Courthouse 444 Southeast Quincy Street Topeka, KS 66683 3 CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE James P. O’Hara 219 Robert J. Dole U.S. Courthouse 500 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 MAGISTRATE JUDGE Kenneth G. Gale 403 U.S. Courthouse 401 North Market Street Wichita, KS 67202 MAGISTRATE JUDGE Teresa J. James 208 Robert J. Dole U.S. Courthouse 500 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 MAGISTRATE JUDGE Gwynne E. Birzer 322 U.S. Courthouse 401 North Market Street Wichita, KS 67202 MAGISTRATE JUDGE Angel D. Mitchell 475 U.S. Courthouse 444 Southeast Quincy Street Topeka, KS 66683 Please see www.ksd.uscourts.gov for the most current telephone contact information. * * * * * * * * * 4 COMMITTEE OF THE COURT Bench-Bar Committee Hon. Chief Judge Julie A. Robinson, ex officio Hon. Eric F. Melgren, Chair Mr. John Shaw Hon. Daniel D. Crabtree Mr. Stephen Netherton Hon. John W. Broomes Ms. Patricia Hamilton Hon. James P. O’Hara Mr. Bryan C. Clark Hon. Teresa J. James Mr. Ryan Keith Meyer Chief Judge Dale Somers Mr. David Prelle Eron Mr. Duston Slinkard Mr. Bradley T. Wilders Ms. Melody Brannon Mr. Branden Smith Chief Justice Marla Luckert * * * * * * * * * 5 TABLE OF RULES -I- SCOPE OF RULES 1.1 SCOPE AND MODIFICATION OF RULES; DEFINITIONS; CITATION ....................... 12 -II- COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION; PROCESS; SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND ORDERS 3.1 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIONS ................................................................................ 12 4.1 SERVICE OF PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE PRACTICE ................... 12 4.2 APPOINTMENT OF STATE OFFICERS TO SERVE PROCESS .................................. 12 5.1 FORM OF PLEADINGS AND PAPERS ......................................................................... 13 5.3 COPIES REQUIRED FOR A THREE-JUDGE COURT ................................................. 14 5.4.1 SCOPE OF ELECTRONIC FILING ................................................................................. 14 5.4.2 ELIGIBILITY, REGISTRATION, PASSWORDS ........................................................... 15 5.4.3 CONSEQUENCES OF ELECTRONIC FILING .............................................................. 19 5.4.4 ENTRY OF COURT ISSUED DOCUMENTS ................................................................ 16 5.4.5 ATTACHMENTS AND EXHIBITS ................................................................................. 16 5.4.6 SEALED DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 17 5.4.8 SIGNATURES .................................................................................................................. 17 5.4.9 SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY ELECTRONIC MEANS ........................................... 18 5.4.10 NOTICE OF COURT ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS ..................................................... 19 5.4.11 TECHNICAL FAILURES................................................................................................. 19 5.4.12 PUBLIC ACCESS ............................................................................................................. 19 5.4.13 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ............................................................................. 19 6.1 TIME ................................................................................................................................. 20 6.2 EFFECTIVE DATE OF COURT FILINGS FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING LIMITATION PERIODS ............................................................... 21 -III- PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS 7.1 MOTIONS IN CIVIL CASES ........................................................................................... 21 7.2 ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTIONS ............................................................................... 22 7.3 MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER ......................................................................................... 22 7.4 FAILURE TO FILE AND SERVE MOTION PAPERS ................................................... 22 7.5 APPLICATION OF THIS RULE ...................................................................................... 23 7.6 BRIEFS AND MEMORANDA ........................................................................................ 23 9.1 HABEAS CORPUS, MOTIONS TO VACATE, AND CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINTS BY PRISONERS .................................................................................... 23 11.1 SANCTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 27 15.1 MOTIONS TO AMEND AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE ................................................... 28 16.1 PRETRIAL CONFERENCES, SCHEDULING, CASE MANAGEMENT ..................... 28 16.2 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ............................................................................................. 29 16.3 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION .................................................................... 30 6 -IV- PARTIES 23.1 CLASS ACTIONS ............................................................................................................ 34 23-A NOTICE OF MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION RELATED CASE ............................... 35 -V- DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY 26.1 COMPLETION TIME FOR DISCOVERY ...................................................................... 35 26.2 MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS ...................................................................... 35 26.3 DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY NOT O BE FILED ............................................... 36 26.4 EXPERT WITNESSES ..................................................................................................... 36 30.1 NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS ............................................................................................ 37 30.2 DEPOSITIONS; NOT TO BE FILED; DELIVERY ........................................................ 37 30.3 TIME FOR TAKING DEPOSITIONS .............................................................................. 37 32.1 USE OF DISCOVERY AT TRIAL ................................................................................... 38 33.1 ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES TO THOSE PERMITTED BY FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a) ................................................................................................. 38 33.2 FORMAT FOR INTERROGATORIES ............................................................................ 38 35.1 TRIAL PREPARATION AFTER CLOSE OF DISCOVERY .......................................... 38 37.1 MOTIONS RELATING TO DISCOVERY ...................................................................... 38 37.2 DUTY TO CONFER CONCERNING DISCOVERY DISPUTES ................................. 39 -VI- TRIALS 38.1 RANDOM SELECTION OF GRAND AND PETIT JURORS ........................................ 39 39.1 ORAL ARGUMENT AT JURY TRIALS ...................................................................... 45 40.1 ASSIGNMENT OF CASES ........................................................................................... 45 40.2 DETERMINATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL ................................................................... 45 40.3 SETTLEMENT OF CASES SET FOR TRIAL ............................................................... 46 41.1 DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION ............................................................... 46 47.1 COMMUNICATION WITH JURORS AFTER TRIAL ..................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brief of Estate and Heirs in SC97476
    Electronically Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI January 28, 2019 12:53 PM No. SC97476 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of Missouri ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------- State of Missouri ex. rel. State of Kansas, Department for Children and Families, And Gina Meier-Hummel, Relators, v. The Honorable Charles H. McKenzie, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Respondent. ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------- On Petition For Writ of Prohibition or, Alternatively, Writ of Mandamus ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------- RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------- Michaela Shelton Mo. No. 41952 Shelton Law Office, P.A. 10100 W. 87th Street Suite 303 Overland Park, Kansas 66212 (913) 341-3001; (913) 341-4289 (facsimile) [email protected] Attorney for Respondent ================================================================ Electronically Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI January 28, 2019 12:53 PM TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities……………………………………………………………………2-5 Jurisdictional Statement……………………………………………………………..……7 Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………………….8-18 Argument…………………………………………………………………...….…….19-72 Standard of Review…………………………………………………………...19-21 RESPONSE TO POINT I: Relators failed to establish a clear right to an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims (against Relators) as a matter of comity because Kansas
    [Show full text]
  • The Shadow Rules of Joinder
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2012 The hS adow Rules of Joinder Robin Effron Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 100 Geo. L. J. 759 (2011-2012) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. The Shadow Rules of Joinder ROBIN J. EFFRON* The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide litigants with procedural devices for joining claims and parties. Several of these rules demand that the claims or parties share a baseline of commonality, either in the form of the same "transactionor occurrence" or a "common question of law or fact." Both phrases have proved to be notoriously tricky in application.Commentators from the academy and the judiciary have attributed these difficulties to the context- specific and discretionary nature of the rules. This Article challenges that wisdom by suggesting that the doctrinal confu- sion can be attributed to deeper theoretical divisions in the judiciary, particu- larly with regardto the role of the ontological categories of "fact" and "law." These theoretical divisions have led lower courtjudges to craft shadow rules of joinder "Redescription" is the rule by which judges utilize a perceived law-fact distinction to characterizea set of facts as falling inside or outside a definition of commonality. "Impliedpredominance" is the rule in which judges have taken the Rule 23(b)(3) class action standard that common questions predominate over individual issues and applied it to other rules of joinder that do not have this express requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Appearance
    Special Appearance A special appearance is the only means for contesting a Texas state court’s jurisdiction over the defendant’s person or property.1 Do not confuse the special appearance with a motion to quash service (a general appearance that, if successful, results only in a new citation)2 or a plea to the jurisdiction (which attacks subject matter jurisdiction).3 Special Appearance Procedure Under Rule 120a Reagan W. Simpson The special appearance must follow Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a. Rule Partner 120a requires a sworn motion. While the motion should have “special [email protected] appearance” in its title, the substance of any pleading is controlling.4 A “special appearance” that asserts a forum selection clause is not a special appearance.5 But a wrong title is not fatal if in substance the pleading challenges personal jurisdiction.6 Regardless of title, the special appearance must be sworn, and the client is the best candidate for the verification. But an unsworn special appearance does not automatically waive a special appearance, because it can be cured. Rule 120a(1) allows amendments to cure any defects without imposing any deadline.7 In fact, a curative amendment can be filed even after denial of the special appearance, although the prudent practitioner will follow all procedures and promptly cure any defects.8 Rebecca Phelps Not all defects may be curable. Presumably, there is no way to cure an Associate untimely or unfiled special appearance,9 and there may be no post-hearing cure [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Ex Parte Young After Seminole Tribe
    RESPONSE EX PARTE YOUNG AFIER SEMINOLE TRIBE DAVID P. CuRm* My message is one of calm placidity: Not to worry; Ex parte Young1 is alive and well and living in the Supreme Court. By way of background let me say that I am that rara avis, a law professor who thinks Hans v. Louisiana2 was rightly decided.3 For the reasons given by Justice Bradley,4 I am quite convinced that the Fed- eral Question Clause of Article III does not extend the judicial power to suits against nonconsenting states. That being so, it follows that the much lamented first half of the decision in Seminole Tribe v. Floridas is also right, for a long series of decisions makes abundantly clear that Congress cannot give the federal courts jurisdiction over matters outside Article 1l.6 Nor do I consider Ex parte Young, as Justice Souter does in his dissenting opinion in Seminole Tribe, as an obvious corollary of Hans.7 On the contrary, Ex parte Young squarely contradicts that de- cision. For even if sovereign immunity was only a matter of form in * Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago. B.A., University of Chicago; LL.B., Harvard. This Comment is based upon remarks made during a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools in January 1997. 1 209 U.S. 123 (1908). 2 134 U.S. 1 (1890) (holding that judicial power of United States does not extend to suits against state by one of its own citizens unless state consents to be sued).
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 32. Using Depositions in Court Proceedings (A) USING DEPOSITIONS
    Rule 32. Using Depositions in Court Proceedings (a) USING DEPOSITIONS. (1) In General. At a hearing or trial, all or part of a deposition may be used against a party on these conditions: (A) the party was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it; (B) it is used to the extent it would be admissible under the law of evidence if the deponent were present and testifying; and (C) the use is allowed by Rule 32(a)(2) through (9). (2) Impeachment and Other Uses. Any party may use a deposition to contradict or impeach the testimony given by the deponent as a witness, or for any other purpose allowed by the law of evidence. (3) Deposition of Party, Agent, or Designee. An adverse party may use for any purpose the deposition of a party or anyone who, when deposed, was the party’s officer, director, managing agent, or designee under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4). (4) Unavailable Witness. A party may use for any purpose the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, if the court finds: (A) that the witness is dead; (B) that the witness is more than 25 miles from the place of hearing or trial or is outside the United States, unless it appears that the witness’s absence was procured by the party offering the deposition; (C) that the witness cannot attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; (D) that the party offering the deposition could not procure the witness’s attendance by subpoena; or (E) on motion and notice, that exceptional circumstances make it desirable—in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of live testimony in open court—to permit the deposition to be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Examples of Meritorious Summary Judgment Motions
    Examples of meritorious summary judgment motions By: Douglas H. Wilkins and Daniel I. Small February 13, 2020 Our last two columns addressed the real problem of overuse of summary judgment. Underuse is vanishingly rare. Even rarer (perhaps non-existent) is the case in which underuse ends up making a difference in the long run. But there are lessons to be learned by identifying cases in which you really should move for summary judgment. It is important to provide a reference point for evaluating the wisdom of filing a summary judgment motion. Here are some non-exclusive examples of good summary judgment candidates. Unambiguous written document: Perhaps the most common subject matter for a successful summary judgment motion is the contracts case or collections matter in which the whole dispute turns upon the unambiguous terms of a written note, contract, lease, insurance policy, trust or other document. See, e.g. United States Trust Co. of New York v. Herriott, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 131 (1980). The courts have said, quite generally, that “interpretation of the meaning of a term in a contract” is a question of law for the court. EventMonitor, Inc. v. Leness, 473 Mass. 540, 549 (2016). That doesn’t mean all questions of contract interpretation — just the unambiguous language. When the language of a contract is ambiguous, it is for the fact-finder to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties. See Acushnet Company v. Beam, Inc., 92 Mass. App. Ct. 687, 697 (2018). Ambiguous contracts are therefore not fodder for summary judgment. Ironically, there may be some confusion about what “unambiguous” means.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial Process in Virginia
    te Trial Process In Virginia A Litigation Boutique THE TRIAL PROCESS IN VIRGINIA table of contents Overview . .3 Significant .MOtiOnS .in .virginia . .4 . Plea .in .Bar . .4 . DeMurrer. .5 . craving .Oyer . .5 Voir .Dire . anD .Jury .SelectiOn .in .virginia . .6 OPening .StateMent . .8 the .receiPt .Of .e viDence . .10 MOtiOnS .tO .Strike . the .eviDence . .12 crOSS-exaMinatiOn . .14 clOSing .arguMent. .15 Jury .inStructiOnS . .17 Making .a .recOrD .fOr .aPP eal . .17 tiMe .liMitS .fOr .nO ting .anD .Perfecting . an .aPPeal . .18 key .tiMe .liMit S .fOr . the .SuPreMe .cOurt .Of .virginia . .19 THE TRIAL PROCESS IN VIRGINIA overview The trial of a civil case in Virginia takes most of its central features from the English court system that was introduced into the “Virginia Colony” in the early 1600s. The core principles of confrontation, the right to a trial by one’s peers, hearsay principles and many other doctrines had already been originated, extensively debated and refined in English courts and Inns of Court long before the first gavel fell in a Virginia case. It is clearly a privilege to practice law in the historically important court system of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and everyone who “passes the bar” and earns the right to sit inside the well of the court literally follows in the footsteps of such groundbreaking pioneers as Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, George Wythe, John Marshall, Lewis Powell and Oliver Hill. However, this booklet is not designed to address either the history or the policy of the law, or to discuss the contributions of these and other legal giants whose legacy is the living system that we enjoy today as professional attorneys.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions· a Monograph on Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions· A Monograph on Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure \f1 (»" It Judicial Center ~ ~ The Federal Judicial Center Board The Chief Justice of the United States, Chairman Judge Edward R. Becker U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judge Martin L. C. Feldman U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Judge Diana E. Murphy U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Judge Sidney B. Brooks U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado Honorable 1. Ralph Mecham Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Director Judge William W Schwarzer Deputy Director Russell R. Wheeler Division Directors Steven A. Wolvek, Court Education Division Denis J. Hauptly, Judicial Education Division Sylvan A. Sobel, Publications & Media Division William B. Eldridge, Research Division Federal Judicial Center, 1520 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005 1 ~•. ~ .. ~:' i ' NCJRS· MAR 4 199? ACQUISITIONS The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions A Monograph on Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure William W Schwarzer Alan Hirsch David J. Barrans Federal Judicial Center 1991 This publication was produced in furtherance of the Center's statutory mis­ sion to conduct and stimulate research and development on matters of judi­ cial administration. The statements, conclusions, and points of view are those of the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • 15. Judicial Review
    15. Judicial Review Contents Summary 413 A common law principle 414 Judicial review in Australia 416 Protections from statutory encroachment 417 Australian Constitution 417 Principle of legality 420 International law 422 Bills of rights 422 Justifications for limits on judicial review 422 Laws that restrict access to the courts 423 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 423 General corporate regulation 426 Taxation 427 Other issues 427 Conclusion 428 Summary 15.1 Access to the courts to challenge administrative action is an important common law right. Judicial review of administrative action is about setting the boundaries of government power.1 It is about ensuring government officials obey the law and act within their prescribed powers.2 15.2 This chapter discusses access to the courts to challenge administrative action or decision making.3 It is about judicial review, rather than merits review by administrators or tribunals. It does not focus on judicial review of primary legislation 1 ‘The position and constitution of the judicature could not be considered accidental to the institution of federalism: for upon the judicature rested the ultimate responsibility for the maintenance and enforcement of the boundaries within which government power might be exercised and upon that the whole system was constructed’: R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 276 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ). 2 ‘The reservation to this Court by the Constitution of the jurisdiction in all matters in which the named constitutional writs or an injunction are sought against an officer of the Commonwealth is a means of assuring to all people affected that officers of the Commonwealth obey the law and neither exceed nor neglect any jurisdiction which the law confers on them’: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, [104] (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).
    [Show full text]
  • Winning Your Case Before You Go to Trial1
    Winning Your Case Before You Go To Trial Chapter 16 Winning Your Case Before You Go To Trial Michelle May O’Neil O’Neil Anderson Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 852-8000 Website: www.oneilanderson.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Email: [email protected] Hon. William Harris 233rd Judicial District Court Family Law Center, 5th Floor 200 East Weatherford Street Fort Worth, Texas 76196 (817) 224-2686 Co-authors: Nathan Anderson Ashley Bowline Russell O’Neil Anderson O’Neil Anderson Two Lincoln Centre Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75240 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 852-8000 (972) 852-8000 Website: www.oneilanderson.com Website: www.oneilanderson.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] State Bar of Texas Advanced Family Law Course 2009 Honoring the Past… Embracing the Future Chapter 16 Winning Your Case Before You Go To Trial Chapter 16 Michelle May O’Neil Founding Partner O’Neil Anderson Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 852-8000 Website: www.oneilanderson.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Email: [email protected] Ms. O’Neil founded the firm with her friend and partner Nathan T. Anderson based on their desire to provide clients with high- quality representation in a personalized atmosphere. She has over 18 years of experience representing men, women, and children related to family law matters such as divorce, child custody, and complex property division. Described by one lawyer as “a lethal combination of sweet-and-salty”, Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Dispositive Motions: a Basic Breakdown
    Civil Dispositive Motions: A Basic Breakdown 1) Simplified Timeline: Motion for 12(b)(6) Motions JNOV** Summary Judgment Motions* Motion for New Trial Motion Motion for D.V. for D.V. (Rul 10 days Discovery and Mediation Plaintiff‟s Defendant‟s Evidence Evidence Process Complaint Trial Jury‟s Entry of Judgment Filed Begins Verdict * Defendant may move at any time. Plaintiff must wait until 30 days after commencement of action. **Movant must have moved for d.v. after close of evidence. 2) Pre-Trial Motions: Rule 12(b)(6) and Summary Judgment A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss 1. Challenge the sufficiency of the complaint on its face. Movant asks the court to dismiss the complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 2. Standard: The court may grant the motion if the allegations in the complaint are insufficient or defective as a matter of law in properly stating a claim for relief. For example: a) The complaint is for fraud, which requires specific pleading, but a required element of fraud is not alleged. 1 b) The complaint alleges breach of contract, but incorporates by reference (and attaches) a contract that is unenforceable as a matter of law. c) The complaint alleges a claim against a public official in a context in which that official has immunity as a matter of law. 3. The court only looks at the complaint (and documents incorporated by reference). a) If the court looks outside the complaint, the motion is effectively converted to a summary judgment and should be treated under the provisions of Rule 56.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court
    Case 2:16-cv-00438-KG-GJF Document 17 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. Civ. No. 16-438 KG/GJF ALMA HELENA CORTES and A.C., a Minor Child, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America’s Combined Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem, for Leave to Deposit Interpleader Funds, and for Dismissal with Prejudice (Motion), filed on October 3, 2016. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff also sought in the Motion an award of $2,000.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this interpleader lawsuit, and requested that the award be deducted from the $38,000.00 basic life insurance Benefit at issue in this case. The Court subsequently held a telephonic status hearing on November 10, 2016, at which the Court extended the time for pro se Defendant Alma Helena Cortes (Cortes) to respond to the Motion to November 28, 2016. (Doc. 14) at 2. The Court also required Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief to address the issue of attorney’s fees and costs, including an appropriate affidavit and breakdown of the requested attorney’s fees and costs. Id. at 1. On November 15, 2016, the Court granted the Motion, in part, when it appointed a guardian ad litem for Defendant A. C., Cortes’ child. (Doc. 15). Then, on December 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed Defendant [sic] the Guardian Life Insurance Company of America’s Supplemental Case 2:16-cv-00438-KG-GJF Document 17 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 8 Briefing in Support of its Request to Recover Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Supplemental Brief) in which Plaintiff now seeks $7,064.25 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
    [Show full text]