DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States EFiled: Jun 28 2018 02:35P Filing ID 62185587 Case Number 184,2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TIBY J. SAUNDERS-GOMEZ, No. 184, 2017 Appellant Below- Appellant, V. Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware RUTLEDGE MAINTENANCE CORP., C.A. No. N16A-03-003 Appellee Below- Appellee. Submitted: April 27, 2018 Decided: June 28, 2018 Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, the Court concludes that the judgment should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its April 3, 2017 opinion affirming the Court of Common Pleas' post-trial judgment in the appellee's favor and its award of attorney's fees under a contractual fee-shifting provision. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: Is! James T. Vaugbn, Jr. Justice Positive As of: September 8, 20188:39 PM Z Rulle& &7a1n1. Cop, Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle January 5, 2017, Submitted; April 3, 2017, Decided C.A. No. N16A-03-003 FWW Reporter 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 164 * TIBY SAUNDERS-GOMEz, Appellant, v. RUTLEDGE over the appeal under Del. C.P. Ct. Civ. A. 72.3(f), MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. despite that the complaint improperly referenced a declaration from an adjacent housing development, as Notice: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED the mirror image rule was satisfied and the reference FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS error did not change the essence of the pleading; [3]- SUBJECTTO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. The MC's claims were not time-barred under Code Ann. fit. 10, 'S 8106 and 8108, as the account was not a Subsequent History: Affirmed by Saunciers-Gomez v. "mutual and running accounV' and the claims were Rutledge Maint. Corp., 2018 Del. LEXIS 307 (Del., June subject to the 20-year common law limitations period 28, 2018) because the declaration was a recorded instrument under seal. Prior History: (*11 On Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. Outcome Judgment affirmed. Saunders-Gomez v. Rutledge Ma/nt. corp., 2016 Del. LexisNexis® Headnotes G.P. LEXIS 8 (Feb. 25. 2016) Disposition: AFFIRMED. Core Terms Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Briefs Declaration, communications, parties, statute of Civil Procedure> Parties> Pro Se Litigants limitations, argues, annual assessment, attorney's fees, running account, opening brief, de novo, Answering, Civil Procedure > Appeals > Reviewability of Lower mutual, bias, seal, recusal, issues, requirements, Court Decisions assessments, asserting, impartial, appeals, appears, deed ffiVi[A] Appeals, Appellate Briefs Case Summary Courts recognize that pro se litigants are afforded a certain measure of leniency in presenting their case to the court. However, the pro se litigant's brief at the very Overview least must assert an argument that is capable of review. Courts are at liberty to reasonably interpret a pro se HOLDINGS: [1]-Some of the grounds in a property litigant's filings, pleadings and appeals in a favorable owner's appeal of a judgment for a housing light to alleviate the technical inaccuracies typical in development's maintenance company (MC), arising many pro se legal arguments. from her breach of contract in failing to pay annual assessments, were not reviewable because they were conclusory, lacking in supporting legal authority, and/or incomprehensible; [2-The trial court had jurisdiction Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Briefs Page 2 of 9 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 164, *1 Civil Procedure > Appeals> Aeviewability of Lower Civil Procedure> Pleading & Court Decisions Practice > Pleadings> Rule Application & Interpretation Civil Procedure> Parties> Pro Se Litigants &r] Capacity of Parties, Representative HiVZLI Appeals, Appellate Briefs Capacity Although the court affords some degree of leniency to According to Del. J.P. Ct. Civ. R. 26(b), if the plaintiff is self-represented litigants as to briefing requirements, an a corporation, partnership or other artificial entity, the bill appellant's opening brief, at a minimum, must be of particulars shall be verified by an officer of the entity adequate so that the court can conduct a meaningful as defined in Del. Sup. Ct. A. 57(a)(3) or any review of the merits of the appellant's claims. In order to representative certified pursuant to Rule 57. develop a legal argument effectively, the opening brief must marshal the relevant facts and establish reversible error by demonstrating why the action at trial was contrary to either controlling precedent or persuasive Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review> De Novo Review decisional authority from other jurisdictions. Civil Procedure> Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction> State Court Review Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > De Novo Review HIV Standards of Review, De Novo Review Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Pursuant to Del. Code Ann. iLt. 10. 95711c) and Del. Review > Questions of Fact & jj C.P. Ct. Civ. A. 72.3(a), all appeals from the Justice of the Peace Court to the Court of Common Pleas are tried Civil Procedure > ... > Standards of de novo. A de novo hearing on appeal from a Justice's Review > Substantial Evidence > Sufficiency of court means a trial anew, whether of law or fact, Evidence according to the usual or required mode of procedure. Indeed, sS 9571 requires that the parties begin anew, as Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate if proceedings in the lower court never took place. Jurisdiction> State Court Review fi[] Standards of Review, De Novo Review Civil Procedure > ...> Pleadings > Amendment of The standard of review by the Superior Court for an Pleadings > Leave of Court appeal from the trial court is the same standard applied by the Supreme Court to appeals from the Superior Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review Court. In addressing appeals from the trial court, the Superior Court is limited to correcting errors of law and CMI determining whether substantial evidence exists to Procedure> ..> Pleadings > Complaints> Require support factual findings. Substantial evidence is relevant ments for Complaint evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court adequate to support a conclusion. If factual findings are ff[] sufficiently supported by the record and are the product The mirror imaae rule of Del. C. P. Ct. Civ. R. 72.3(f) is of an orderly and logically deductive process, then they satisfied if the complaint on appeal presents no parties will not be challenged. Questions of law are reviewed or issues other than those presented by the original de novo. complaint below. Once appellate jurisdiction is perfected, parties may seek to amend the pleadings or otherwise add or dismiss issues or parties. Civil Procedure> Parties > Capacity of Parties> Representative Capacity Business & Corporate Compliance> ... > Contracts Page 3 of 9 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 164, *1 jj> Standards of Performance > Creditors & way bear on the merits of the proceeding. Debtors Contracts jv> Defenses > Statute of Limitations Civil Procedure > Appeals> Standards of Review> Abuse of Discretion EZ[c] Standards of Performance, Creditors & Debtors Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review> De Novo Review Pursuant to DeL Code Ann. tit. 10. § 8106. an action to enforce a contract has a three-year statute of limitations. Civil Procedure > ... > Disqualification & The statute of limitations begins to accrue at the time of Recusal > Grounds for Disqualification & the breach. In the case of a mutual and running account Recusal > Personal Bias between parties, however, the statute of limitations shall not begin to run while such account continues open and HN11[] Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion current. Del. Code Ann. tit. 10. § 8108. When addressing a motion for recusal on grounds of personal bias or prejudice, a judge must engage in a Business & Corporate Compliance> J.. > Contracts two-part analysis. First, the judge must subjectively j> Types of Contracts > Contracts Under Seal determine that she can proceed to hear the case free of bias or prejudice. Second, once the judge has Contracts j> Defenses> Statute 6f Limitations subjectively determined that she has no bias, she must then objectively determine whether, actual bias aside, LAIfl[] Types of Contracts, Contracts, Under Seal there is an appearance of bias sufficient to cause doubt about her impartiality. If an objective observer viewing It is well-established under Delaware law that the circumstances would conclude that a fair or impartial instruments evidenced by seal are subject to the hearing is unlikely, recusal is appropriate. The judge common law 20-year statute of limitations. must make both determinations on the record. On appeal, the appellate court reviews the trial court's subjective analysis for abuse of discretion, but reviews the merits of the objective analysis de novo. Business & Corporate Compliance> ...> Contracts Types of Contracts> Contracts Under Seal L.!> Counsel: Tiby Saunders-Gomez, Appellant, Pro Se, New Castle, Delaware. Contracts jjj> Defenses> Statute of Limitations Edward J. Fomias, Ill, Esquire, Law Office of EJ HM[] Types of Contracts, Contracts Under Seal Fomias, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Rutledge Maintenance Corporation. Under Delaware 1y a contract under seal is subject to a 20-year statute of limitations. However, exactly what Judges: Ferris W. Wharton, J. constitutes a sealed instrument that is not a mortgage or deed under Delaware law is not clear because there is Opinion by: Ferris W. Wharton a conflict in the trial courts' decisions. Opinion___ Legal Ethics > Judicial Conduct HN10[ Legal Ethics, Judicial Conduct ORDER The Comment on Del. Judges' Code Jud. Conduct WHARTON, J. - - - -- 4. ..44 SL._1. 41... M .1— .s+ 4.,,,4,1 frs %actl lvii • .•.' ..., . This 3rd day of April, 2017, upon consideration of preclude communications between a judge and lawyers Appellant Tiby Saunders-Gomez's ("Appellant") which are purely procedural, such concerning matters Opening Brief, Appellee Rutledge Maintenance as those which pertain to scheduling, and which in no Corporation's ("Appellee") Answering Brief, Appellant's Page 4 of 9 2017 Del.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 16-1423 Ortiz V. United States (06/22/2018)
    Summary 6/25/2018 1:41:01 PM Differences exist between documents. New Document: Old Document: 16-1423_new 16-1423 71 pages (394 KB) 71 pages (394 KB) 6/25/2018 1:40:53 PM 6/25/2018 1:40:53 PM Used to display results. Get started: first change is on page 43. No pages were deleted How to read this report Highlight indicates a change. Deleted indicates deleted content. indicates pages were changed. indicates pages were moved. file://NoURLProvided[6/25/2018 1:41:22 PM] (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ORTIZ v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES No. 16–1423. Argued January 16, 2018—Decided June 22, 2018 Congress has long provided for specialized military courts to adjudicate charges against service members. Today, courts-martial hear cases involving crimes unconnected with military service. They are also subject to several tiers of appellate review, and thus are part of an in- tegrated “court-martial system” that resembles civilian structures of justice. That system begins with the court-martial itself, a tribunal that determines guilt or innocence and levies punishment, up to life- time imprisonment or execution.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth District Court of Appeals: 4D17-2141 15 Judicial
    Filing # 74015120 E-Filed 06/25/2018 08:48:03 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC18-398 Lower Tribunal No(s).: Fourth District Court of Appeals: 4D17-2141 15th Judicial Civil Circuit: 2016 CA 009672 ALISON RAMPERSAD and LINDA J. WHITLOCK, Petitioners, vs. COCO WOOD LAKES ASSOCIATION, INC. Respondent. PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT PETITIONERS’ AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION STRICKENPetitioners Represented Propria Persona Filer: Linda J. Whitlock, pro se RECEIVED, 06/25/2018 08:48:29 AM, Clerk, Supreme Court 14630 Hideaway Lake Lane Delray Beach, Florida 33484 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………. i TABLE OF CITATIONS…………………………………………. ii - x PREFACE / INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT............................................................ 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ........................................... 7 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................... 8 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................. 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 10 STRICKEN Case No. SC2018-398 Amended Jurisdictional Brief Page [ i ] TABLE OF CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES Supreme Court Cases: Board of City Commissioners of Madison City. v. Grice 438
    [Show full text]
  • 19-1189 BP PLC V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BP P. L. C. ET AL. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1189. Argued January 19, 2021—Decided May 17, 2021 Baltimore’s Mayor and City Council (collectively City) sued various en- ergy companies in Maryland state court alleging that the companies concealed the environmental impacts of the fossil fuels they promoted. The defendant companies removed the case to federal court invoking a number of grounds for federal jurisdiction, including the federal officer removal statute, 28 U. S. C. §1442. The City argued that none of the defendants’ various grounds for removal justified retaining federal ju- risdiction, and the district court agreed, issuing an order remanding the case back to state court. Although an order remanding a case to state court is ordinarily unreviewable on appeal, Congress has deter- mined that appellate review is available for those orders “remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of [Title 28].” §1447(d). The Fourth Circuit read this provision to authorize appellate review only for the part of a remand order deciding the §1442 or §1443 removal ground.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trial Court Rules
    UNIFORM TRIAL COURT RULES Including Amendments Effective August 1, 2016 (Including Out-of-Cycle Amendments to UTCR 5.100, UTCR Chapter 21 Title, UTCR 21.040, 21.060, 21.070, and 21.100) This document has no copyright and may be reproduced. In the Matter of the Adoption of ) CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER Amendments to the Uniform Trial ) No. 16-019 Court Rules ) ) ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ) UNIFORM TRIAL COURT RULES I HEREBY ORDER, pursuant to ORS 1.002, UTCR 1.030, and UTCR 1.050, the following: 1. The Uniform Trial Court Rules, as amended below, are adopted and are effective August 1, 2016, pursuant to ORS 1.002. 2. All current local rules inconsistent with the Uniform Trial Court Rules as amended will be deemed ineffective on August 1, 2016, pursuant to UTCR 1.030. 3. Local rules that are consistent with the Uniform Trial Court Rules as amended remain in effect and are subject to review as provided under UTCR 1.050. 4. Those local rules that are not amended or repealed and are not disapproved on review under UTCR 1.050 remain in effect until so amended, repealed, or disapproved. Dated this \ 1<lb day of May, 2016. Thomas A. Balmer " Chief Justice IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Adoption of ) SUPREME COURT ORDER Amendments to Uniform Trial Court ) No. 16-018 Rule 19.020 ) ) ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO ) UNIFORM TRIAL COURT RULE 19.020 Pursuant to ORS 33.145, the Oregon Supreme Court has approved amendment of Uniform Trial Court Rule (UTCR) 19.020, therefore I HEREBY ORDER the following: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview
    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Civil Practice Guide
    Practice Series Illinois Civil Practice Guide Andrew W. Vail Colleen G. DeRosa © 2012 JENNER & BLOCK LLP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED www.jenner.com ABOUT JENNER & BLOCK Founded in 1914, Jenner & Block is a national law firm of approximately 450 attorneys. Our Firm has been widely recognized for producing outstanding results in corporate transactions and securing significant litigation victories from the trial level through the United States Supreme Court. Companies and individuals around the world trust Jenner & Block with their most sensitive and consequential matters. Our clients range from the top ranks of the Fortune 500, large privately held corporations and financial services institutions to emerging companies, family-run businesses and individuals. OFFICES 353 North Clark Street 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456 Los Angeles, California 90071 Firm: 312 222-9350 Firm: 213 239-5100 Fax: 312 527-0484 Fax: 213 239-5199 919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor 1099 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 New York, New York 10022-3908 Washington, D.C. 20001-900 Firm: 212 891-1600 Firm: 202 639-6000 Fax: 212 891-1699 Fax: 202 639-6066 © 2012 Jenner & Block LLP. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide general information on legal matters. Transmission is not intended to create and receipt does not establish an attorney- client relationship. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication. The attorney responsible for this publication is Andrew W. Vail. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING 1 AUTHOR INFORMATION Andrew W. Vail is a partner in Jenner & Block’s Litigation Department and a member of the Firm’s Complex Commercial and Antitrust Litigation Practice Groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim, and Setoff to a Civil Complaint a Guide to Resources in the Law Library
    Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2011-2019, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2019 Edition Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim, and Setoff to a Civil Complaint A Guide to Resources in the Law Library Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 Section 1: Admissions and Denials ............................................................................... 4 Figure 1: Admissions and Denials (Form) ................................................................. 12 Section 2: Special Defenses ....................................................................................... 13 Table 1: List of Special Defense Forms in Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice ............. 26 Table 2: List of Special Defense Forms in Library of Connecticut Collection Law Forms ... 28 Table 3: Pleading Statute of Limitations Defense - Selected Recent Case Law ............... 29 Table 4: Pleading Statute of Limitations Defense - Selected Treatises .......................... 32 Figure 2: Discharge in Bankruptcy (Form) ................................................................ 33 Figure 3: Reply to Special Defenses – General Denial (Form) ..................................... 34 Figure 4: Reply to and Avoidance of Special Defenses (Form) ..................................... 35 Section 3: Counterclaims and Setoffs.......................................................................... 37 Figure 5: Answer
    [Show full text]
  • Vs. Defendant(S) NO. ORDER SETTING
    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING NO. NO. Plaintiff(s), ORDER SETTING CIVIL CASE SCHEDULE vs. ASSIGNED JUDGE:_________________ Defendant(s) TRIAL DATE:______________________ (*ORSCS) (*ORSCS) A civil case has been filed in the King County Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule on Page 3 as ordered by the King County Superior Court Presiding Judge. I. NOTICES NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: The Plaintiff may serve a copy of this Order Setting Case Schedule (Schedule) on the Defendant(s) along with the Summons and Complaint/Petition. Otherwise, the Plaintiff shall serve the Schedule on the Defendant(s) within 10 days after the later of: (1) the filing of the Summons and Complaint/Petition or (2) service of the Defendant's first response to the Complaint/Petition, whether that response is a Notice of Appearance, a response, or a Civil Rule 12 (CR 12) motion. The Schedule may be served by regular mail, with proof of mailing to be filed promptly in the form required by Civil Rule 5 (CR 5). "I understand that I am required to give a copy of these documents to all parties in this case." | Print Name Sign Name ORDER SETTING CIVIL CASE SCHEDULE Revised October 2009 I. NOTICES (continued) NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: All attorneys and parties shall familiarize themselves with the King County Local Civil Rules [LCR] -- especially those referred to in this Schedule. For example, discovery must be undertaken promptly in order to comply with the deadlines for joining additional parties, claims, and defenses, for disclosing possible witnesses [See LCR 26], and for meeting the discovery cutoff date [See LCR 37(g)].
    [Show full text]
  • No. 03-1788 ___JOHN D'iorio; DIANE D'iori
    PRECEDENTIAL (Filed June 3, 2004) ___________ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Anthony S. McCaskey, Esq. (Argued) ___________ Peter B. Van Deventer, Jr., Esq. St. John & Wayne No. 03-1788 Two Penn Plaza East ___________ Newark, NJ 07105 Counsel for Appellant JOHN D'IORIO; DIANE D'IORIO Scott K. McClain, Esq. (Argued) v. Winne, Banta, Hetherington & Basralian 25 Main Street MAJESTIC LANES INC., Court Plaza North a New Jersey Corporation, Hackensack, NJ 07602 Counsel for Appellee Appellant ___________ ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ___________ STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. OF NEW JERSEY Under Alternative Dispute Resolution (D.C. No. 01-cv-00809) Act of 1998 (“the Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 651 District Judge: The Honorable et seq., District Courts must enact local Harold A. Ackerman rules authorizing “the use of alternative ___________ dispute resolution processes in all civil actions” in accordance with the Act’s ARGUED MARCH 9, 2004 provisions. 28 U.S.C. § 651(b). The District of New Jersey complied with this Before: SLOVITER and command and enacted N.J. L. Civ. R. NYGAARD, Circuit Judges, and 201.1(h)(1), which reads: OBERDORFER, District Judge* Any party may demand a trial de novo in the District Court by filing with the Clerk a written demand, containing a short and plain *. Hon. Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior statement of each ground in support District Judge, United States District thereof, and serving a copy upon all Court for the District of Columbia, counsel of record or other parties.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTIONS in CIVIL CASES Writing, Scheduling, and Opposing Or Replying to Motions Guides for Particular Motions This Guide Includes Instructions and Sample Forms
    Sacramento County Public Law Library & Civil Self Help Center 609 9th St. Sacramento, CA 95814 saclaw.org (916) 874-6012 >> Home >> Law 101 MOTIONS IN CIVIL CASES Writing, Scheduling, and Opposing or Replying to Motions Guides for Particular Motions This Guide includes instructions and sample forms. Links to download the fillable forms are at the end of this Guide. This guide should be useful for Additional copies of this Guide can be downloaded from: most types of civil motions, but the saclaw.org/motions-general Law Library has prepared guides for many specific situations. Some BACKGROUND popular ones are: This Guide describes the process of making and opposing Motion to Vacate or Set Aside motions in a case in Sacramento County Superior Court. This (Relief from Default Judgment) can be complex and requires very specific paperwork. If you saclaw.org/relief-default-judgment still have questions after reading this guide, come in to the Law Library to research your questions or talk to a lawyer. Motion to Pay Judgment in Installments Terms to Know saclaw.org/motion-installments papers filed to ask the judge to make a court order Motions: Peremptory Challenge in an existing case, to explain why the moving party is legally (Dismissing Judge) entitled to the order, and to set up a hearing date for oral saclaw.org/peremptory-challenge- argument and the decision : 16+5: . Minimum advance notice judge sixteen court (business) days before hearing plus five calendar days for mail service on other party. Discovery Motions saclaw.org/law-101/discovery- papers filed by the opposing party to object to a Opposition: topic/#research motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to a Complaint: Washington, Practical Law State Q&A W-000-4121
    Responding to a Complaint: Washington, Practical Law State Q&A w-000-4121 Responding to a Complaint: Washington by Barbara J. Duffy, Lane Powell PC, with Practical Law Litigation Law stated as of 10 Jun 2019 • United States, Washington A Q&A guide to responding to a complaint in a trial court of general jurisdiction in Washington. This Q&A addresses the time to respond, extending the time to respond, pre-answer motions, answers, replies to the answer, counterclaims, crossclaims, third-party claims (also known as impleader), and defensive interpleader. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Responding to a Complaint: State Q&A Tool). Overview of Responding to a State Complaint 1. When must a defendant respond to the complaint? In Washington, a defendant must respond to a complaint within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint (Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 4(a)(2) and 12(a)(1)). If process is served by publication, a defendant must respond within 60 days from the date of first publication of the summons (RCW 4.28.110 and Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(a)(2)). If a plaintiff serves a defendant outside of Washington, the defendant has 60 days to respond to the complaint (RCW 4.28.180 and Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(a)(3)). 2. How, if at all, can one obtain an extension of time to respond (for example, by stipulation, so-ordered stipulation, ex parte motion, motion on notice)? Counsel should check the local court's website for additional information regarding extending time to respond to a complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking the Business out of Work Product
    TAKING THE BUSINESS OUT OF WORK PRODUCT Michele DeStefano Beardslee* Over the past fifteen years, a common set of questions has surfaced in different areas of scholarship about the breadth of the corporate attorney’s role: Should the corporate attorney provide business advice when providing legal advice? Should the corporate attorney provide counsel related to other disciplines such as public relations, social responsibility, morals, accounting, and/or investment banking? Should the corporate attorney prevent corporate wrongdoing? Questions like these resound in the scholarship addressing the risks and benefits of multi-disciplinary partnerships, gatekeeping, moral counseling, ancillary services, and the application of the attorney-client privilege. When looked at in combination, these segregated discussions equate to an unidentified but burgeoning debate about the proper role of the corporate attorney and whether a distinction can or should be made between doing business and practicing law. This debate also exists in court opinions assessing the reach of recent SEC regulations, the work product doctrine, and the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, the application of the doctrine assessing these issues provides a lens through which to view the tensions created by the increasingly transdisciplinary and globalized role of the corporate attorney and the changing contours of litigation. To that end, by analyzing a sampling of federal court opinions that address the work product doctrine in the context of work related to public relations, this Article seeks to show that variations in how the doctrine is applied reflect disagreement about how expansive the role of today’s corporate attorney and the definition of litigation should be.
    [Show full text]