DOCSLIB.ORG

2018 Illinois Civil Practice Guide, Jenner & Block Practice Series

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Practice Series Illinois Civil Practice Guide 2018 EDITION ANDREW W. VAIL JENNIFER S. SENIOR KEVIN J. MURPHY DANIEL A. EPSTEIN ELPITHA B. LAMBROS Founded in 1914, Jenner & Block is a law firm of international reach with more than 500 lawyers. Our firm has been widely recognized for producing outstanding results in 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. We have earned our reputation as a litigation powerhouse. The 350 lawyers in our nationally recognized litigation department have won impressive victories in complex and challenging cases in a broad range of substantive areas of law and across a wide variety of industries, before federal, state and administrative courts and in arbitrations. We have achieved landmark rulings on behalf of clients in matters before the United States Supreme Court — our appellate advocates have presented 18 oral arguments to the court in the last 10 terms, and we also have an extensive amicus practice. CHICAGO 353 NORTH CLARK STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60654-3456 TEL +1 312 222-9350 LONDON 25 OLD BROAD STREET LEVEL 17 LONDON, EC2N 1HQ TEL +44 0 33 0060 5400 LOS ANGELES 633 WEST 5TH STREET SUITE 3600 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-2054 TEL +1 213 239-5100 NEW YORK 919 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022-3908 TEL +1 212 891-1600 WASHINGTON, DC 1099 NEW YORK AVENUE NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4412 TEL +1 202 639-6000 WWW.JENNER.COM © 2018 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 i AUTHOR INFORMATION1 Andrew W. Vail is a partner in Jenner & Block’s Litigation Department and a member of the firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation, Antitrust Litigation, Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Litigation, Consumer Litigation, Environmental Litigation, Financial Services Litigation, International Arbitration and Real Estate Litigation Practice Groups. Mr. Vail has extensive litigation experience in federal and state courts and a commitment to providing legal services to those in need and to the bar. He has been named an Illinois “Super Lawyer” every year since 2014 and has been named among Illinois’ “Best of the Best” (top 100 lawyers in the state) and to the “40 Illinois Attorneys Under Forty to Watch,” among other awards and recognitions. He currently serves as a member of the Chicago Bar Association’s Board of Managers. Mr. Vail’s complete biography can be found at http://jenner.com/people/AndrewVail. He can be contacted at [email protected] or (312) 840-8688. Jennifer S. Senior is a partner in Jenner & Block’s Chicago office. She is a member of the firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation Practice Group. Ms. Senior has served as the lead associate on a wide range of matters in state and federal courts, arbitrations and mediations. She also maintains an active pro bono practice, focusing on representing prisoners in enforcing their constitutional rights. Ms. Senior’s complete biography can be found at http://jenner.com/people/JenniferSenior. She can be contacted at [email protected] or (312) 840-7652. Kevin J. Murphy is an associate in Jenner & Block’s Litigation Department. Mr. Murphy has worked on a wide range of litigation matters in state and federal courts, including several securities class actions and white collar investigations. He received his J.D. in 2014 from the University of Notre Dame Law School. Mr. Murphy’s complete biography can be found at http://jenner.com/people/KevinMurphy. He can be contacted at [email protected] or (312) 840-7429. Daniel A. Epstein is an associate in Jenner & Block’s Litigation Department. Mr. Epstein has trial and appellate litigation experience in a variety of matters, including cases involving administrative law, constitutional law, antitrust, contracts, immigration, intellectual property, securities, and torts. He received his J.D. in 2015 from The University of Chicago Law School. Mr. Epstein’s complete biography can be found at https://jenner.com/people/DanielEpstein. He can be contacted at [email protected] or (312) 840-7396. Elpitha B. Lambros is a former associate in Jenner & Block’s Litigation Department. She currently clerks for Judge Kocoras of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 1 The authors welcome and are grateful for any comments and questions that may improve the Guide. They also appreciate the important assistance provided by Michelle Churlin on all five editions of the Guide, and the assistance of many others over the years. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SPECIAL APPEARANCES IN ILLINOIS COURTS ................................... 1 A. OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS ........................................................ 1 B. LIMITED SCOPE APPEARANCES .................................................. 1 II. CITING ILLINOIS CASES IN ILLINOIS COURT PLEADINGS .................. 2 III. JURY DEMAND ........................................................................................ 2 IV. COUNTING TIME UNDER ILLINOIS LAW ............................................... 3 V. PLEADINGS .............................................................................................. 3 A. FORM OF PLEADINGS .................................................................... 3 i. Titles and Signature Blocks in Pleadings ................................. 3 ii. Electronic Filing of Pleadings ................................................... 4 iii. Substance of Pleadings ........................................................... 4 iv. Personal Identifying Information in Pleadings and Filings ........ 5 B. THE COMPLAINT ............................................................................. 6 C. VERIFIED PLEADINGS .................................................................... 7 D. AFFIDAVIT REGARDING DAMAGES SOUGHT .............................. 7 E. EXHIBITS ......................................................................................... 8 F. SERVICE OF PROCESS AND PROOF OF SERVICE ..................... 8 G. ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT .................................................... 10 i. Time to Appear and Answer ................................................... 10 ii. Waiver of Service ................................................................... 10 iii. Denials ................................................................................... 10 iv. Affirmative Defenses .............................................................. 11 H. REPLIES TO ANSWERS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES .......... 12 I. COUNTERCLAIMS AND CROSS-CLAIMS .................................... 12 J. REPLIES TO COUNTERCLAIMS ................................................... 13 K. THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINTS ....................................................... 14 L. INTERVENTION ............................................................................. 14 M. SANCTIONS FOR IMPROPER PLEADINGS OR OTHER FILINGS .......................................................................................... 14 VI. MOTIONS ............................................................................................... 15 A. DEADLINES AND FORM OF MOTIONS ........................................ 15 B. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE ................................... 16 iii i. Involvement of Judge ............................................................. 16 ii. As a Matter of Right ............................................................... 16 iii. As a Matter of Cause ............................................................. 18 iv. In Contempt Proceedings ....................................................... 18 C. MOTION TO CHALLENGE PERSONAL JURISDICTION .............. 19 D. MOTION TO CHALLENGE VENUE ............................................... 19 E. MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS ................................................................................ 20 F. BILL OF PARTICULARS ................................................................ 21 G. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE OR SEVER CLAIMS ....................... 21 H. MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL ...................................... 22 I. 2-615, 2-619 & 2-619.1 MOTIONS TO DISMISS ............................ 22 i. 2-615 Motion to Dismiss ......................................................... 23 ii. 2-619 Motion for Involuntary Dismissal .................................. 23 iii. Combined 2-615/2-619 Motions ............................................. 24 iv. Partial Motions to Dismiss and Answering ............................. 25 J. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ...................................................... 25 K. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ............................................ 25 L. SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ............................................... 26 i. Timeframe for Moving for Summary Judgment ...................... 26 ii. Procedure for Moving for Summary
Recommended publications
  • Compulsory Counterclaim Committee

    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.
  • May 2 8 2019

    May 2 8 2019

    Case 3:17-cv-01127-WQH-KSC Document 142 Filed 05/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 50 1 FILED 2 MAY 2 8 2019 3 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTi'lcRN DISi'RICT OF ~)~1.IFORNIA 4 B'f _0:!:. OEP~!JY. 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH J. MOSER, individually, and Case No.: 17cvl 127-WQH(KSC) --~ _ on behalf of all others similarl:x situated,,_.1_________________ 1 __ 12 ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY v. DISPUTE RE INTERROGATORIES 14 AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS HEALTH INSURANCE 15 SERVED ON PLAINTIFF BY INNOVATIONS, INC., a Delaware DEFENDANT DONIS! JAX, INC. 16 corporation, et al., 17 Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 97 and 98.] 18 19 20 Before the Court are: (1) a 76-page Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 21 Dispute [Doc. No. 97] addressing interrogatories served on plaintiff by defendant Donisi 22 Jax, Inc.; and (2) a 151-page Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute 23 addressing document requests served on plaintiff by defendant Donisi Jax, Inc. [Doc. No. 24 98.] In these two Joint Motions, defendant Donisi Jax, Inc. seeks an order compelling 25 plaintiff to provide further, substantive responses to certain interrogatories and document 26 requests. The subject interrogatories and documents requests at issue are interrelated as 27 they seek documents and information on the same topics. These two Motions are the fifth 28 and sixth discovery disputes in this case [Doc. Nos. 75, 83, 84, 87, 99, 100, 101, 102, 118], I .
  • The Shadow Rules of Joinder

    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.
  • The New Federal Rules of Procedure As Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code, 23 Marq

    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.
  • GLOSSARY of LEGAL TERMS Ad Damnum

    GLOSSARY of LEGAL TERMS Ad Damnum

    GLOSSARY OF LEGAL TERMS Ad damnum: The technical name of the clause in the complaint that contains a statement by the plaintiff of the amount of the damages he/she is claiming. Additur: The opposite of Remittitur. An increase in an award by the Judge done in the Court's discretion if he or she feel the Jury's judgment is inadequate. Adjudicate: To settle in the exercise of judicial authority; to determine finality. Admissions: Confessions, concessions, or voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of certain facts. Affiant: The person who makes and subscribes an affidavit. Affidavit: Sworn statement of a witness, which is verified by a Notary Public. Affirmative Defense: A defense that must be specifically pled by the defendant to be asserted at trial. If such a defense is not raised in the answer, it is waived. An example of an affirmative defense is contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, etc. Appellant: The party who takes an appeal from one court or jurisdiction to another in the interest of setting aside or reversing the judgment. Appellee: The party in a case against whom an appeal is taken, that is, the party who has an interest adverse to setting aside or reversing the judgment (some times called the respondent). Arbitration: Alternative dispute resolution in which the case is decided by an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators, usually experienced attorneys, former judges, or administrative law judges. The case is decided after an informal hearing. Arbitration is almost always binding. Assumption of the Risk: This is an affirmative defense.
  • Rule 32. Using Depositions in Court Proceedings (A) USING DEPOSITIONS

    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.
  • Trial Process in Virginia

    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.
  • Motion for Stay of Discovery

    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.
  • DISC-001 Form Interrogatories

    DISC-001 Form Interrogatories

    DISC-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO. (Optional): E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SHORT TITLE OF CASE: FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL CASE NUMBER: Asking Party: Answering Party: Set No.: Sec. 1. Instructions to All Parties (c) Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as (a) Interrogatories are written questions prepared by a party to an the information reasonably available to you, including the action that are sent to any other party in the action to be information possessed by your attorneys or agents, permits. answered under oath. The interrogatories below are form If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, answer it interrogatories approved for use in civil cases. to the extent possible. (b) For time limitations, requirements for service on other parties, (d) If you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully and other details, see Code of Civil Procedure sections answer an interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and 2030.010–2030.410 and the cases construing those sections. good faith effort to get the information by asking other (c) These form interrogatories do not change existing law persons or organizations, unless the information is equally relating to interrogatories nor do they affect an answering available to the asking party. party’s right to assert any privilege or make any objection. (e) Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by referring to Sec. 2. Instructions to the Asking Party a document, the document may be attached as an exhibit to (a) These interrogatories are designed for optional use by parties the response and referred to in the response.
  • U:\Judgehovland\Law Clerks\Civil\Motions to Dismiss\Wilkinson V. Sbtwpd.Wpd

    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.
  • Can a Subsequent Change in Law

    Can a Subsequent Change in Law

    Hastings Law Journal Volume 60 | Issue 5 Article 3 1-2009 Can a Subsequent Change in Law Void a Marriage that Was Valid at Its Inception? Considering the Legal Effect of Proposition 8 on California's Existing Same-Sex Marriages Lois A. Weithorn Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lois A. Weithorn, Can a Subsequent Change in Law Void a Marriage that Was Valid at Its Inception? Considering the Legal Effect of Proposition 8 on California's Existing Same-Sex Marriages, 60 Hastings L.J. 1063 (2009). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol60/iss5/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Can a Subsequent Change in Law Void a Marriage that Was Valid at Its Inception? Considering the Legal Effect of Proposition 8 on California's Existing Same-Sex Marriages Lois A. WEITHORN* INTRODUCTION On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court held that California's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the California Constitution.' In re Marriage Cases consolidated several legal challenges to the two California statutes that limited marriage to a union of a man and a woman.' The court's holding removed state restrictions regarding the * Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law.
  • Attorney Case Opening Interpleader Complaint Disputed Ownership Fund 28:1335

    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.