DOCSLIB.ORG

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Table of Contents PART I - GENERAL RULES RULE 1. OBJECTIVE OF RULES RULE 2. SCOPE OF RULES RULE 3. CONSTRUCTION OF RULES RULE 3a. LOCAL RULES RULE 4. COMPUTATION OF TIME RULE 5. ENLARGEMENT OF TIME RULE 6. SUITS COMMENCED ON SUNDAY RULE 7. MAY APPEAR BY ATTORNEY RULE 8. ATTORNEY IN CHARGE RULE 9. NUMBER OF COUNSEL HEARD RULE 10. WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY RULE 11. AGREEMENTS TO BE IN WRITING RULE 12. ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY RULE 13. EFFECT OF SIGNING PLEADINGS, MOTIONS AND OTHER PAPERS; SANCTIONS RULE 14. AFFIDAVIT BY AGENT RULE 14b. RETURN OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF EXHIBITS RULE 14c. DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF SURETY BOND PART II - RULES OF PRACTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURTS Section 1 - General Rules RULE 15. WRITS AND PROCESSES RULE 16. SHALL ENDORSE ALL PROCESS RULE 17. OFFICER TO EXECUTE PROCESS RULE 18. WHEN JUDGE DIES DURING TERMS, RESIGNS OR IS DISABLED RULE 18a. RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES RULE 18b. GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OR RECUSAL OF JUDGES RULE 18c. RECORDING AND BROADCASTING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS RULE 19. NON-ADJOURNMENT OF TERM RULE 20. MINUTES READ AND SIGNED RULE 21. FILING AND SERVING PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS RULE 21a. METHODS OF SERVICE RULE 21b. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE OR DELIVERY A COPY OF PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS RULE 21c. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR FILED DOCUMENTS Section 2 - Institution of Suit RULE 22. COMMENCED BY PETITION RULE 23. SUITS TO BE NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY RULE 24. DUTY OF CLERK RULE 25. CLERK'S FILE DOCKET RULE 26. CLERK'S COURT DOCKET RULE 27. ORDER OF CASES Section 3 - Parties to Suits RULE 28. SUITS IN ASSUMED NAME RULE 29. SUIT ON CLAIM AGAINST DISSOLVED CORPORATION RULE 30. PARTIES TO SUITS RULE 31. SURETY NOT TO BE SUED ALONE RULE 32. MAY HAVE QUESTION OF SURETYSHIP TRIED RULE 33. SUITS BY OR AGAINST COUNTIES RULE 34. AGAINST SHERIFF, ETC. RULE 35. ON OFFICIAL BONDS RULE 36. DIFFERENT OFFICIALS AND BONDSMEN RULE 37. ADDITIONAL PARTIES RULE 38. THIRD-PARTY PRACTICE RULE 39. JOINDER OF PERSONS NEEDED FOR JUST ADJUDICATION RULE 40. PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES RULE 41. MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES RULE 42. CLASS ACTIONS RULE 43. INTERPLEADER RULE 44. MAY APPEAR BY NEXT FRIEND Section 4 - Pleading A. General RULE 45. DEFINITION AND SYSTEM RULE 46. PETITION AND ANSWER; EACH ONE INSTRUMENT OF WRITING RULE 47. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF RULE 48. ALTERNATIVE CLAIMS FOR RELIEF RULE 49. WHERE SEVERAL COUNTS RULE 50. PARAGRAPHS, SEPARATE STATEMENTS RULE 51. JOINDER OF CLAIMS AND REMEDIES RULE 52. ALLEGING A CORPORATION RULE 53. SPECIAL ACT OR LAW RULE 54. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT RULE 55. JUDGMENT RULE 56. SPECIAL DAMAGE RULE 57. SIGNING OF PLEADINGS RULE 58. ADOPTION BY REFERENCE RULE 59. EXHIBITS AND PLEADING RULE 60. INTERVENOR'S PLEADINGS RULE 61. TRIAL: INTERVENORS: RULES APPLY TO ALL PARTIES RULE 62. AMENDMENT DEFINED RULE 63. AMENDMENTS AND RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS RULE 64. AMENDED INSTRUMENT RULE 65. SUBSTITUTED INSTRUMENT TAKES PLACE OF ORIGINAL RULE 66. TRIAL AMENDMENT RULE 67. AMENDMENTS TO CONFORM TO ISSUES TRIED WITHOUT OBJECTION RULE 68. COURT MAY ORDER REPLEADER RULE 69. SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION OR ANSWER RULE 70. PLEADING: SURPRISE: COST RULE 71. MISNOMER OF PLEADING RULE 74. FILING WITH THE COURT DEFINED RULE 75. FILED PLEADINGS; WITHDRAWAL RULE 75a. FILING EXHIBITS: COURT REPORTER TO FILE WITH CLERK RULE 75b. FILED EXHIBITS: WITHDRAWAL RULE 76. MAY INSPECT PAPERS RULE 76a. SEALING COURT RECORDS RULE 77. LOST RECORDS AND PAPERS Section 4 - Pleading B. Pleadings of Plaintiff RULE 78. PETITION; ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL; INDORSEMENT RULE 79. THE PETITION RULE 80. PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION RULE 81. DEFENSIVE MATTERS RULE 82. SPECIAL DEFENSES Section 4 - Pleading C. Pleadings of Defendant RULE 83. ANSWER; ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL; ENDORSEMENT RULE 84. ANSWER MAY INCLUDE SEVERAL MATTERS RULE 85. ORIGINAL ANSWER; CONTENTS RULE 86. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE RULE 87. DETERMINATION OF MOTION TO TRANSFER RULE 88. DISCOVERY AND VENUE RULE 89. TRANSFERRED IF MOTION IS SUSTAINED RULE 90. WAIVER OF DEFECTS IN PLEADING RULE 91. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS RULE 91a DISMISSAL OF BASELESS CAUSES OF ACTION RULE 92. GENERAL DENIAL RULE 93. CERTAIN PLEAS TO BE VERIFIED RULE 94. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RULE 95. PLEAS OF PAYMENT RULE 96. NO DISCONTINUANCE RULE 97. COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM RULE 98. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS Section 5 - Citation RULE 99. ISSUANCE AND FORM OF CITATION RULE 103. WHO MAY SERVE RULE 105. DUTY OF OFFICER OR PERSON RECEIVING RULE 106. METHOD OF SERVICE RULE 107. RETURN OF SERVICE RULE 108. SERVICE IN ANOTHER STATE RULE 108a. SERVICE OF PROCESS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES RULE 109. CITATION BY PUBLICATION RULE 109a. OTHER SUBSTITUTED SERVICE RULE 110. EFFECT OF RULES ON OTHER STATUTES RULE 111. CITATION BY PUBLICATION IN ACTION AGAINST UNKNOWN HEIRS OR STOCKHOLDERS OF DEFUNCT CORPORATIONS RULE 112. PARTIES TO ACTION AGAINST UNKNOWN OWNERS OR CLAIMANTS OF INTEREST IN LAND RULE 113. CITATION BY PUBLICATION IN ACTIONS AGAINST UNKNOWN OWNERS OR CLAIMANTS OF INTEREST IN LAND RULE 114. CITATION BY PUBLICATION; REQUISITES RULE 115. FORM OF PUBLISHED CITATION IN ACTIONS INVOLVING LAND RULE 116. SERVICE OF CITATION BY PUBLICATION RULE 117. RETURN OF CITATION BY PUBLICATION RULE 117a. CITATION IN SUITS FOR DELINQUENT AD VALOREM TAXES RULE 118. AMENDMENT RULE 119. ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE RULE 119a. COPY OF DECREE RULE 120. ENTERING APPEARANCE RULE 120a. SPECIAL APPEARANCE RULE 121. ANSWER IS APPEARANCE RULE 122. CONSTRUCTIVE APPEARANCE RULE 123. REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT RULE 124. NO JUDGMENT WITHOUT SERVICE Section 6 - Costs and Security Therefor RULE 125. PARTIES RESPONSIBLE RULE 126. FEE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN A COUNTY OTHER THAN IN THE COUNTY OF SUIT RULE 127. PARTIES LIABLE FOR OTHER COSTS RULE 129. HOW COSTS COLLECTED RULE 130. OFFICER TO LEVY RULE 131. SUCCESSFUL PARTY TO RECOVER RULE 133. COSTS OF MOTION RULE 136. DEMAND REDUCED BY PAYMENTS RULE 137. IN ASSAULT AND BATTERY, ETC. RULE 138. COST OF NEW TRIALS RULE 139. ON APPEAL AND CERTIORARI RULE 140. NO FEE FOR COPY RULE 141. COURT MAY OTHERWISE ADJUDGE COSTS RULE 142. SECURITY FOR COSTS RULE 143. RULE FOR COSTS RULE 143a. COSTS ON APPEAL TO COUNTY COURT RULE 144. JUDGMENT ON COST BOND RULE 145. PAYMENT OF COSTS NOT REQUIRED RULE 146. DEPOSIT FOR COSTS RULE 147. APPLIES TO ANY PARTY RULE 148. SECURED BY OTHER BOND RULE 149. EXECUTION FOR COSTS Section 7 - Abatement and Discontinuance of Suit RULE 150. DEATH OF PARTY RULE 151. DEATH OF PLAINTIFF RULE 152. DEATH OF DEFENDANT RULE 153. WHEN EXECUTOR, ETC., DIES RULE 154. REQUISITES OF SCIRE FACIAS RULE 155. SURVIVING PARTIES RULE 156. DEATH AFTER VERDICT OR CLOSE OF EVIDENCE RULE 158. SUIT FOR THE USE OF ANOTHER RULE 159. SUIT FOR INJURIES RESULTING IN DEATH RULE 160. DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATION RULE 161. WHERE SOME DEFENDANTS NOT SERVED RULE 162. DISMISSAL OR NON-SUIT RULE 163. DISMISSAL AS TO PARTIES SERVED, ETC. RULE 165. ABANDONMENT RULE 165a. DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION Section 8 - Pre-Trial Procedure RULE 166. PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE RULE 166a. SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULE 167. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT; AWARD OF LITIGATION COSTS RULE 168. PERMISSION TO APPEAL RULE 169. EXPEDITED ACTIONS RULE 171. MASTER IN CHANCERY RULE 172. AUDIT RULE 173. GUARDIAN AD LITEM RULE 174. CONSOLIDATION; SEPARATE TRIALS RULE 175. ISSUE OF LAW AND DILATORY PLEAS Section 9 - Evidence and Discovery A. Evidence RULE 176. SUBPOENAS RULE 180. REFUSAL TO TESTIFY RULE 181. PARTY AS WITNESS RULE 183. INTERPRETERS RULE 185. SUIT ON ACCOUNT Section 9 - Evidence and Discovery B. Discovery RULE 190. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS RULE 191. MODIFYING DISCOVERY PROCEDURE AND LIMITATION; CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT; SIGNING DISCLOSURES; DISCOVERY REQUESTS, RESPONSES, AND OBJECTIONS; FILING REQUIREMENTS RULE 192. PERMISSIBLE DISCOVERY; FORMS AND SCOPE; WORK PRODUCT; PROTECTIVE ORDERS; DEFINITIONS RULE 193. WRITTEN DISCOVERY: RESPONSE; OBJECTION; ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE; SUPPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT; FAILURE TO TIMELY RESPOND; PRESUMPTION OR AUTHENTICITY RULE 194. REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE RULE 195. DISCOVERY REGARDING TESTIFYING EXPERT WITNESSES RULE 196. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION TO PARTIES; REQUESTS AND MOTIONS FOR ENTRY UPON PROPERTY RULE 197. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES RULE 198. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS RULE 199. DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION RULE 200. DEPOSITIONS UPON WRITTEN QUESTIONS RULE 201. DEPOSITIONS IN FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS FOR USE IN TEXAS PROCEEDINGS; DEPOSITIONS IN TEXAS FOR USE IN FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS RULE 202. DEPOSITIONS BEFORE SUIT OR TO INVESTIGATE CLAIMS RULE 203. SIGNING, CERTIFICATION AND USE OF ORAL AND WRITTEN DEPOSITIONS RULE 204. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION RULE 205. DISCOVERY FROM NON-PARTIES RULE 215. ABUSE OF DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS Section 10 - The Jury in Court RULE 216. REQUEST AND FEE FOR JURY TRIAL RULE 217. OATH OF INABILITY RULE 218. JURY DOCKET RULE 219. JURY TRIAL DAY RULE 220. WITHDRAWING CAUSE FROM JURY DOCKET RULE 221. CHALLENGE TO THE ARRAY RULE 222. WHEN CHALLENGE IS SUSTAINED RULE 223. JURY LIST IN CERTAIN COUNTIES RULE 224. PREPARING JURY LIST RULE 225. SUMMONING TALESMAN RULE 226. OATH TO JURY PANEL RULE 226a. ADMONITORY INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY PANEL AND JURY RULE 227. CHALLENGE TO JUROR RULE 228. ACHALLENGE FOR CAUSE@ DEFINED RULE 229. CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE RULE 230. CERTAIN QUESTIONS NOT TO BE ASKED RULE 231. NUMBER REDUCED BY CHALLENGES RULE 232. MAKING PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES RULE 233. NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES RULE 234. LISTS RETURNED TO THE CLERK RULE 235. IF JURY IS INCOMPLETE RULE 236. OATH TO JURY Section 11 - Trial of Causes A. Appearance and Procedure RULE 237. APPEARANCE DAY RULE 237a. CASES REMANDED FROM FEDERAL COURT RULE 238. CALL OF APPEARANCE DOCKET RULE 239. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT RULE 239a. NOTICE OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT RULE 240. WHERE ONLY SOME ANSWER RULE 241. ASSESSING DAMAGES ON LIQUIDATED DEMANDS RULE 243. UNLIQUIDATED DEMANDS RULE 244. ON SERVICE BY PUBLICATION RULE 245. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES FOR TRIAL RULE 246.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Compulsory Counterclaim Committee
    Report of Boyd-Graves Conference Compulsory Counterclaim Committee Members of the Committee to Study a Proposal to Adopt a Compulsory Counterclaim Rule are Stuart Raphael, Ham Bryson, Bob Mitchell, David Anthony, Jack Costello, Kent Sinclair, Lisa O’Donnell, Bill Mims, and Robin Wood, Chairman. The Committee has met thrice by conference call: on March 25, 2008, April 30, 2008, and May 22, 2008. In the initial conference the Chairman polled members of the Committee to determine if there was a consensus among members of the Committee in favor of a compulsory counterclaim. Seven members of the Committee said they were in favor of a compulsory counterclaim, and two members of the Committee expressed reservations about a compulsory counterclaim rule. In response to an inquiry about a compulsory counterclaim rule in other states, Kent thought that over 40 states had adopted a compulsory counterclaim rule. The Chairman asked members to state their reasons for their position. Those members who were in favor of the rule felt that it was good public policy for all claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence to be joined in one action. A compulsory counterclaim rule promotes judicial economy and efficiency. Under Rule 1:6, the plaintiff is required to join all claims that arise out of an identified conduct, transaction or occurrence, or later be barred from bringing a second or subsequent action against the same opposing party (parties) arising out the same conduct, transaction or occurrence. The adoption of a compulsory counterclaim rule would require the opposing party to state a claim arising out of the conduct identified in the complaint, crossclaim, or third party claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
    April 27, 2020 Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Madam Speaker: I have the honor to submit to the Congress an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that has been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to Section 2072 of Title 28, United States Code. Accompanying the amended rule are the following materials that were submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code: a transmittal letter to the Court dated October 23, 2019; a redline version of the rule with committee note; an excerpt from the September 2019 report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Judicial Conference of the United States; and an excerpt from the June 2019 report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. Sincerely, /s/ John G. Roberts, Jr. April 27, 2020 Honorable Michael R. Pence President, United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Mr. President: I have the honor to submit to the Congress an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that has been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to Section 2072 of Title 28, United States Code. Accompanying the amended rule are the following materials that were submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code: a transmittal letter to the Court dated October 23, 2019; a redline version of the rule with committee note; an excerpt from the September 2019 report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Judicial Conference of the United States; and an excerpt from the June 2019 report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.
    [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]
  • The New Federal Rules of Procedure As Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code, 23 Marq
    Marquette Law Review Volume 23 Article 2 Issue 4 June 1939 The ewN Federal Rules of Procedure as Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code Daniel C. Hopkinson Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Daniel C. Hopkinson, The New Federal Rules of Procedure as Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code, 23 Marq. L. Rev. 159 (1939). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol23/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NEW FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE COMPARED WITH THE FORMER FEDERAL EQUITY RULES AND THE WISCONSIN CODE DANIEL K HOPIINSON T OA considerable extent, the practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the same as the practice under the Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code. There are, however, a great many minor and a few substantial differences. The lawyer who has tried suits in equity in the federal courts will be interested in knowing to what extent the practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure conforms to the practice under the former Federal Equity Rules. The lawyer who has engaged in litigation in the Wisconsin courts or who has tried actions at law in the federal district courts in Wisconsin will examine the new federal rules with a view to determining the devia- tion from the Wisconsin practice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diligence (Scotland) Regulations 2009
    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format. SCOTTISH STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2009 No. 68 ENFORCEMENT DEBT DILIGENCE The Diligence (Scotland) Regulations 2009 Made - - - - 23rd February 2009 Laid before the Scottish Parliament - - - - 24th February 2009 Coming into force - - 22nd April 2009 The Scottish Ministers make the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 155(4), 159 and 159A(3) of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868(1), sections 73B(2), 73G(2) and 73S(1) of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987(2); and sections 148(3) and 224(2) of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007(3) and all other powers enabling them to do so. Citation and commencement 1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Diligence (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and come into force on 22nd April 2009. Interpretation 2. In these Regulations– “the 1868 Act” means the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868; “the 1987 Act” means the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987; and “the 2007 Act” means the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007. (1) 1868 c. 101 (“the 1868 Act”). Section 155 was substituted, section 159 amended, and section 159A inserted by, sections 149, 164(1) and 162 respectively of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 asp 3 (“the 2007 Act”). Section 164(2) inserts section 159B of the 1868 Act which contains a definition of “prescribed” relevant to the powers under which these Regulations are made. (2) 1987 c. 18 (“the 1987 Act”).
    [Show full text]
  • Motion for Stay of Discovery
    Case 2:18-cv-00907-KOB Document 28 Filed 11/02/18 Page 1 of 5 FILED 2018 Nov-02 PM 04:12 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION LAKEISHA CHESTNUT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00907-KOB ) JOHN H. MERRILL, ) ) Defendant, ) ) DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATE’S (OPPOSED) MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY Defendant, Secretary of State John H. Merrill, respectfully requests a stay of all parties’ discovery obligations until the Court resolves the validity of Plaintiffs’ complaint. Secretary Merrill has filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because jurisdiction lies with a three-judge court, because Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts demonstrating a proper remedy, and because Plaintiffs claims are barred by laches. When such a motion is pending, Circuit law compels a stay to guard against the “significant costs” of unwarranted discovery requests. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997). Counsel for Defendant have consulted with counsel for the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs oppose this motion. Case 2:18-cv-00907-KOB Document 28 Filed 11/02/18 Page 2 of 5 I. Background Eight years after the last census and two years before the next one, Plaintiffs brought this action claiming that Alabama must re-draw its seven congressional districts to include a second majority-black district. See doc. 1. Secretary Merrill moved to dismiss when Plaintiffs failed to allege that they would reside in a re- configured majority-black district, see doc.
    [Show full text]
  • U:\Judgehovland\Law Clerks\Civil\Motions to Dismiss\Wilkinson V. Sbtwpd.Wpd
    Case 4:08-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 118 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION Peak North Dakota, LLC, a Colorado ) limited liability company; Peak Energy ) Resources, LLC, a Delaware limited ) liability company, Jack Vaughn, Alex ) McLean, and Matt Gray, ) ORDER ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:08-cv-087 ) Wilbur Wilkinson, Standing Bear ) Traders, LLC, a North Dakota limited ) liability company, and the Three Affiliated ) Tribes, Fort Berthold District Court, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________________________________________ ) Wilbur Wilkinson, ) ) Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Standing Bear Traders, LLC, ) a North Dakota limited liability company, ) and Margarita Burciaga-Taylor and ) Richard Howell, individually and ) d/b/a Standing Bear Traders, LLC, ) ) Third-Party Defendants. ) Before the Court is Standing Bear Traders, LLC (SBT) and Margarita Burciaga-Taylor’s (Taylor) “Motion to Dismiss Wilkinson’s Third Party Complaint or, Alternatively, to Abstain from Exercising Jurisdiction Over Wilkinson’s Third Party Complaint” filed on January 15, 2010. See Docket No. 83. Third-Party Plaintiff Wilbur Wilkinson (Wilkinson) filed a response in opposition 1 Case 4:08-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 118 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 12 to the motion on March 10, 2010. See Docket No. 106. Taylor and SBT filed a reply brief on March 24, 2010. See Docket No. 108. Taylor and SBT filed a supplemental appendix on March 26, 2010. See Docket No. 111. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND Peak North Dakota, LLC (Peak North) is a limited liability company organized under Colorado law and authorized to do business as a foreign limited liability company in North Dakota.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence in Civil Law – Germany
    © Institute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement Maribor All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retriveal system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Title: Evidence in Civil Law – Germany Authors: Christian Wolf, Nicola Zeibig First published 2015 by Institute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement Maribor Grajska ulica 7, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia www.lex-localis.pres, [email protected] Book Series: Law & Society Series Editor: Tomaž Keresteš CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 347(430)(0.034.2) WOLF, Christian, 1958- Evidence in civil law - Germany [Elektronski vir] / Christian Wolf, Nicola Zeibig. - El. knjiga. - Maribor : Institute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement, 2015. - (Lex localis) (Book series Law & society) Način dostopa (URL): http://books.lex-localis.press/evidenceincivillaw/germany ISBN 978-961-6842-49-5 (epub) 1. Zeibig, Nicola 281112576 Price: free copy Evidence in Civil Law – Germany Christian Wolf Nicola Zeibig Evidence in Civil Law – Germany 1 CHRISTIAN WOLF & NICOLA ZEIBIG ABSTRACT The fundamental principles in civil procedure do not only serve as guiding principles for civil procedure in general, but are especially relevant in the taking of evidence process. The German Code of Civil Procedure lays down various rules in its part on the taking of evidence, which aim to specify the scope of the fundamental procedural principles as well as their limitations. This reports purposes to depict the taking of evidence process under German law by illustrating its interaction with said principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney Case Opening Interpleader Complaint Disputed Ownership Fund 28:1335
    Civil – Case Opening - Attorney April 2017 ATTORNEY CASE OPENING INTERPLEADER COMPLAINT DISPUTED OWNERSHIP FUND 28:1335 An equitable proceeding brought by a third person to have a court determine the ownership rights of rival claimants to the same money or property that is held by that third person. The IRS defines a disputed ownership fund (DOF) as a fund established to hold money or property that is subject to conflicting claims of ownership in the registry of the court. Interpleader funds are deposited with the court by a non-owner, third party and invested in the court’s registry pending the court’s determination of ownership and entry of a disbursement order. I. CASE OPENER 1. Open a Civil Case (Attorney) a) After reading information screen click Next b) After reading OFFICE by county screen click Next c) Select Office: Camden, Newark or Trenton; Case type: cv d) Other court name and number – use if appropriate e) After reading information screen click Next f) Enter the following in the appropriate fields: Jurisdiction generally 4 (Diversity) but may be 3 (Federal Question)1 Cause of Action = 28:1335 (28:1335 Interpleader Action) Nature of Suit in most cases it would be 110 (Insurance) however, 190 (Other Contract), 791 (ERISA) and 890 (Other Statutory Action) are other possibilities Origin = 1 (Original Proceeding) Citizenship plaintiff and defendant - Select appropriately Jury demand - Select appropriately County - Select appropriately Fee status defaults to pd (paid), change if appropriate All other fields leave blank or as populated, click Next g) After reading entering parties information screen click Next 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcement of Copyright in Australia And, in Particular, On
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia &UDFNLQJGRZQRQFRS\FDWV HQIRUFHPHQWRIFRS\ULJKWLQ$XVWUDOLD House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs November 2000 © Commonwealth of Australia 2000 ISBN 0 642 36634 9 &RQWHQWV Foreword...............................................................................................................................................vi Membership of the Committee............................................................................................................ viii Terms of reference ................................................................................................................................x List of abbreviations............................................................................................................................ xiii List of recommendations......................................................................................................................xv 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................1 Referral of inquiry....................................................................................................................... 1 Background to the inquiry......................................................................................................... 2 The inquiry process ................................................................................................................... 3 The report...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Trial Subpoena Duces Tecum
    Civil Trial Subpoena Duces Tecum Rudolph comparing his aquavit sign pusillanimously or aback after Domenic interns and starts misknowingTullastrologically, stampede his exemplificativeher furlong isoantigen if Ingamar rancorouslyand isramose. edged and Subclavicularor hydrogenaterecuse misanthropically. and uppishly. triennial Goober Prehuman hirsles Raleigh while alwaysepiphytic This article is not intended as legal advice. However, and Respondent. What if I have no records to produce as described in the subpoena? To be effective the Subpoena must be served upon the person who is to appear. Rules of Trial Procedure. Protection Order Cases, his production may be required. Witness appearance contingent on fee payment. Time for service, including the production of all books, along with declaration. Arizona rules by the trial by various names and duces tecum to civil trial subpoena duces tecum is disclosed in civil and duces tecum served the clerk is possible for other representative shall fix his appointment of. By whom served; how served. This section does not limit the power of the department to require the appearance of witnesses or production of documents or other tangible evidence located outside the state. Generally: form and contents; originating court; who may issue; who may serve; proof of service. The Court upheld the subpoena, can someone else accept service on my behalf? Duties in responding to subpoena. Record of Judgments and Orders and note the entry of the judgment in the Chronological Case Summary and Judgment Docket. If the person is already a party in the case, consider how to respond. You must send a copy of any motion to quash or modify the subpoena to the party orattorney who served the subpoena.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:12-Cv-00668-KRG Document 131 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 27
    Case 2:12-cv-00668-KRG Document 131 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HOWARD KEPHART and DIANE ) KEPHART, ) Civil Action No. 2:12-668 ) Plaintiffs, ) Judge Kim R. Gibson ) v. ) ) ABB, INC., ) ) Defendant; Third-Party ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE BABCOCK & WILCOX ) COMPANY, et al., ) ) Third-Party Defendants ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT I. Synopsis Before the Court in this matter are three motions: (1) a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 94) filed by Third-Party Defendants Babcock & Wilcox Company, Babcock & Wilcox Investment Company, and Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group (“B & W” or “B & W Defendants”); (2) a motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 108) filed by Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff ABB, Inc. (“ABB”); and (3) a motion for consolidation of oral argument (ECF No. 111) filed by Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff ABB, Inc. The primary issue argued by the parties is whether Pennsylvania’s statute of repose, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5536, provides protection from liability in this action to Third-Party Defendants B & W and to Defendant ABB. Based on the record before the Court and after Case 2:12-cv-00668-KRG Document 131 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 27 a careful review of Pennsylvania’s statute of repose and the relevant case law, the Court finds that the statute of repose bars ABB’s contribution claims against the B & W Defendants, but does not bar Plaintiffs’ products liability and negligence claims against ABB. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained below, the Court will GRANT B & W’s motion to dismiss and will DENY ABB’s motion for partial summary judgment.
    [Show full text]