DOCSLIB.ORG

APPENDIX TABLE of CONTENTS. PAGES

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APPENDIX TABLE of CONTENTS. PAGES APPENDIX TABLE of CONTENTS. PAGES. AppendixA is eight pages...........................................................................................1-8 Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, April 18, 2018, decision. AppendixB is one page...................................................................................................9 Denial of the Petition for Rehearing. AppendixC is two pages..........................................................................................10-11 California State Trial Court, order. AppendixD is one page .................................................................................................. 12 July 18, 2018 Order denying Discretionary Review by the California Supreme Court. AppendixE is one page.................................................................................................13 And contains copies of Article VI, clause 2 and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1291. AppendixF is one page.................................................................................................14 And contains Title 28. U.S.C. § 1367 (d) and Supreme Court Rule 10. (b) and (c). State of California Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District Division One Filed 4/19/18 Not to be publishedi Case no. D072560 in official reports. ] Lower court: San Diego County Superior Court case no.: 37-2016-00038660- CU-PT-CTL Jack R. Koch, Plaintiff and Appellant, V. A. Estrella, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from ajudgment and order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa C. Schall, Judge. Affirmed. Jack R. Koch, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Monica N. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Misha D. Igra, Neah Huynh and Christopher H. Findley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents. In 2003, plaintiff Jack Koch sued several state prison officials in federal court, alleging they violated his federal civil rights by wrongfully taking a DNA sample from him while he was an inmate. The federal lawsuit concluded in August 2009. In November 2016, Koch filed this action asserting state-law claims against the same prison officials arising from 1 Appendix A the same 2003 DNA-sample incident. Several of these defendants (Demurring Defendants)'demurred on the basis of res judicata and statute of limitations. The trial court sustained their demurrer without leave to amend on untimeliness grounds, and denied Koch's motion for reconsideration. He appeals both rulings. We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background The Federal Lawsuit2 On October 17, 2003, Koch filed the federal lawsuit against state prison officials, alleging they violated his federal civil rights about two months earlier (on August 21, 2003) by forcibly taking a DNA sample from him without a warrant or his consent. Koch alleged the statute that authorizes authorities to take DNA samples from certain offenders (Pen. Code § 296) did not apply to the offense of which he had been convicted. I Demurring Defendants are E. Fontan, L. Skelton, A. Estrella, A.Maldonado, B. Maldonado, L. Vanderweide, and R. Castaneda. The nondemurring defendants had not yet been served with the lawsuit. 2 In ruling on a demurrer, we may consider matters subject to judicial notice. (Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp.(2016) 62 Cal. 4th 919, 924 (Yvanova).) On our own motion, and with notice to the parties, we have taken judicial notice of the federal court's file in Koch's federal lawsuit, Koch v. Lockyer, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:03-cv-02067-LAB-LSP (the federal lawsuit). (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d); id. § 459, subds. (a), (c); id. § 455, subd. (b).) We deny Koch's motion requesting that we take judicial notice of (1) several documents filed in the federal lawsuit, and (2) the superior court's order sustaining the demurrer of defendant E. Contreras, which "occurred approximately five months after" the court entered the judgment at issue in this appeal. The motion is (1) moot as to the specific federal court documents because we have taken judicial notice of the federal court's file on our own motion; and (2) improper as it relates to the superior court's subsequent demurrer order because we generally do not consider matters that occur after the entry of the challenged judgment. (See California School Boards Assn. v. State. (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 770, 803.) 2 Appendix A Koch sought monetary damages and injunctive relief in the form of expungement and destruction of his DNA sample. The district court granted summary judgment in the defendants' favor, finding the defendants (1) had not violated Koch's civil rights, and (2) would, in any event, be entitled to qualified immunity against Koch's damages claims. The district court entered a judgment of dismissal. Koch appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). On July 15, 2009, that court issued an unpublished memorandum opinion affirming the judgment in part, and reversing it in part. The Ninth Circuit concluded the sampling of Koch's DNA violated his Fourth Amendment rights because his offense was not subject to the DNA-sample statute. However, "[g]iven the complexity and novelty of the issues presented," the court agreed with the district court that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity against Koch's damages claims. As to Koch's request for injunctive relief, the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment and ordered the state to (1) permanently destroy Koch's DNA sample within 30 days, and (2) file an affidavit attesting to compliance with the court's order. The defendants timely complied with the order on August 11, 2009. Koch petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, but the court denied his petition on May 28, 2013. (See Koch v. Estrella (2013) 569 U.S. 1009, 133 S. Ct. 2745.) The court also denied his subsequent petition for rehearing on August 12, 2013. (See Koch v. Estrella (2013) 570 U.S. 942, 134 S. Ct. 37.) Following proceedings on remand to the district court, in February 2012 Koch moved 3 Appendix A for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to assert a variety of state-law claims arising from the same 2003 DNA-sample incident. The following month, the district court denied Koch's motion. The court's order states: "Plaintiffs case is closed and the Court will not accept any further filings from Plaintiff in this closed case." Koch appealed the district court's order denying leave to amend. In January 2013, the Ninth Circuit "summarily affirm[ed] the district court's judgment." No further substantive proceedings occurred in the federal lawsuit. However, the docket report indicates the district court repeatedly denied leave for Koch to file any more documents because the case was closed. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit repeatedly advised Koch that "[n]o further filings will be entertained in this closed case." This lawsuit In November 2016, Koch filed his complaint in this action asserting substantially the same state-law claims he sought to assert in the federal lawsuit, against the same prison officials arising from the same 2003 DNA-sample incident. Demurring Defendants demurred on this basis of res judicata and statute of limitations. Koch opposed the demurrer, arguing his lawsuit was timely filed inasmuch as (1) he filed the federal lawsuit well within the applicable limitations period; (2) the limitations period was tolled the entire time the federal lawsuit was pending; and (3) the federal lawsuit was pending as late as 2015, as evidenced by a November 5, 2015 order issued by the federal court. This order states: "Case closed, no further documents to be filed. Koch must not file or attempt to file any more documents in this case." The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding "[t]he dates 4 Appendix A alleged in the Complaint show the action is barred by the [applicable] two-year statute of limitations...." The court signed and filed an order dismissing the lawsuit as to the Demurring Defendants.3 Koch moved for reconsideration, asking the trial court to invoke its "inherent power to correct errors" and to "stri[ke], vacatefl, set-aside and nullif[y] its demurrer ruling. He reasoned the Ninth Circuit's 2009 opinion partially reversed the judgment, and the district court's November 5, 2015 order—both of which were before the trial court when it ruled on the demurrer—show he timely filed this lawsuit. The trial court denied Koch's motion, explaining: "Plaintiff has not presented any new facts or law warranting reconsideration." DISCUSSION I. The Trial Court Properly Sustained The Demurrer on Statue-of-limitations Grounds A. Standard of Review "A demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the complaint by raising questions of law. [Citations.] Where the complaint discloses on its face that the statute of limitations has run on the causes of action stated in the complaint, it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." (ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 825, 833.) "For purposes of reviewing a demurrer, we accept the truth of material facts properly pleaded in the operative complaint, but not contentions, deductions, or The signed, filed dismissal order is an appealable judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581d Cox V. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal. App. 5th 855, 858.) 5 Appendix A conclusions of fact or law. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice." (Yvanovcz, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 924.) B. Tolling Principles A plaintiff
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Examples of Meritorious Summary Judgment Motions
    Examples of meritorious summary judgment motions By: Douglas H. Wilkins and Daniel I. Small February 13, 2020 Our last two columns addressed the real problem of overuse of summary judgment. Underuse is vanishingly rare. Even rarer (perhaps non-existent) is the case in which underuse ends up making a difference in the long run. But there are lessons to be learned by identifying cases in which you really should move for summary judgment. It is important to provide a reference point for evaluating the wisdom of filing a summary judgment motion. Here are some non-exclusive examples of good summary judgment candidates. Unambiguous written document: Perhaps the most common subject matter for a successful summary judgment motion is the contracts case or collections matter in which the whole dispute turns upon the unambiguous terms of a written note, contract, lease, insurance policy, trust or other document. See, e.g. United States Trust Co. of New York v. Herriott, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 131 (1980). The courts have said, quite generally, that “interpretation of the meaning of a term in a contract” is a question of law for the court. EventMonitor, Inc. v. Leness, 473 Mass. 540, 549 (2016). That doesn’t mean all questions of contract interpretation — just the unambiguous language. When the language of a contract is ambiguous, it is for the fact-finder to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties. See Acushnet Company v. Beam, Inc., 92 Mass. App. Ct. 687, 697 (2018). Ambiguous contracts are therefore not fodder for summary judgment. Ironically, there may be some confusion about what “unambiguous” means.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Arbitration: Unique Joinder and Consolidation Challenges
    ® JUNE 2020 | VOLUME 74 | NUMBER 3 © 2020, American Arbitration Association Construction Arbitration: Unique Joinder and Consolidation Challenges Steven Champlin∗ Tiana Towns† Introduction It is well known that arbitration as a means of deciding disputes is used widely in the construction industry to avoid litigation costs and delays and for other reasons. To a great extent, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) has provided the preferred forum and rules. Yet, there are lawyers and their clients who question use of arbitration to resolve construction disputes. One of the reasons often advanced relates to the potential inability in some circumstances to join, that is add, some parties to a proceeding or consolidate related, but separate, arbitrations, with the consequence that multiple proceedings, increased expense, and inconsistent results can occur. It is important for those in the construction industry to understand what the joinder and consolidation challenges actually are and how they can be mitigated. I. Reasons Construction Disputes May Give Rise to Joinder and Consolidation Issues Construction disputes often require evaluation of which parties should be joined in a proceeding or whether a related arbitration should be consoli- dated with a proceeding for a number of reasons unique to the construction setting, which are discussed below. ∗After retiring from Dorsey & Whitney LLP, an international law firm, where he served as head of the firm’s construction and design group for over 20 years, Steven Champlin has devoted most of his professional activities to serving as an arbitrator. He is a member of the AAA National Roster of Arbitrators, Large, Complex Cases Panel, CPR’s National Panel of Distinguished Construction Neutrals, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
    [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]
  • Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation John E
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 38 | Issue 3 Article 4 1972 Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation John E. Kennedy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation John E. Kennedy, Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Impleader in Federal Aviation Litigation, 38 J. Air L. & Com. 325 (1972) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol38/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS AND IMPLEADER IN FEDERAL AVIATION LITIGATION JOHN E. KENNEDY* I. THE GENERAL PROBLEM: MULTIPLE POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS W HEN airplanes crash, difficult procedural problems often arise from the numbers of potential parties and the com- plexity of the applicable substantive law. Since under that law, re- covery can be granted to large numbers of plaintiffs, and liability can be distributed to a variety of defendants, the procedural rights to counterclaim, cross-claim and implead third-parties have become important aspects of federal aviation litigation. When death results the most obvious parties plaintiff are those injured by the death of the decedent, i.e., the spouses, children, heirs and creditors. Whether they must sue through an estate, or special administrator or directly by themselves will ordinarily be determined by the particular state wrongful death statute under which the action is brought, and the capacity law of the forum.' In addition, the status of the decedent will also have bearing on the parties and the form of action.
    [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]
  • Summons with Attached Proof of Service
    Form 7: Summons and Attached Proof of Service—Page 1 of 3 Name (Plaintiff’s name, address, and telephone number) Address Telephone Plaintiff, Pro Se SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION—FAMILY PART COUNTY (County where complaint is filed) DOCKET NO. FM (Docket number of complaint) Name: Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION vs. SUMMONS Name: Defendant FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED ABOVE: The plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you dispute this complaint, you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of service with the deputy clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above within 35 days from the date you received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (A directory of the addresses of each deputy clerk of the Superior Court is available in the Civil Division Management Office in the county listed above and online at www.njcourts.gov/forms/11237_directory_civil_ofcs.pdf.) If the complaint is one in foreclosure, then you must file your written answer or motion and proof of service with the Clerk of the Superior Court, Hughes Justice Complex, P.O. Box 971, Trenton, NJ 08625-0971. A filing fee payable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey and a completed Case Information Statement (available from the deputy clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany your answer or motion when it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiff's attorney whose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Approach to Plaintiff Incentive Fees in Class Action Lawsuits
    Copyright 2020 by Jason Jarvis Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 115, No. 3 Note A NEW APPROACH TO PLAINTIFF INCENTIVE FEES IN CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS Jason Jarvis ABSTRACT—Because modern litigation is time-intensive and expensive, a consumer has no monetary incentive to sue over a low-value claim—even when the defendant has clearly violated that consumer’s legal rights. But the defendant may have harmed many consumers in the same way, causing significant cumulative damage. By permitting the aggregation of numerous small claims, class action lawsuits provide a monetary incentive for lawyers and plaintiffs to pursue otherwise low-value suits. Often, an important part of this incentive is the “incentive fee,” an additional payment awarded to the named plaintiffs as compensation for the time they spend and risks they assume in representing the class. But such fees have the potential to create dangerous conflicts of interest—named plaintiffs may be “bought off” with a large incentive fee to give their approval to an otherwise unfair settlement. To avoid this problem, courts must review and approve requests for incentive fees. Unfortunately, courts do not adequately evaluate the dangers of incentive awards and balance these dangers against the justifications for such awards. This Note proposes a new test to better guide courts in assessing the propriety of incentive fees. Specifically, courts should look at (1) the amount of time and effort that the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation; (2) risks that the named plaintiff faced in bringing and advancing the litigation; and (3) evidence of conflicts of interest that might prejudice the class.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion to Dismiss
    Connecticut Judicial Branch Self-Represented Parties Information Series Motion to Dismiss Screen 1 Welcome to the Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Self-Represented Parties Information Series Screen 2 Connecticut Civil Lawsuit: Motion to Dismiss In this overview, we will discuss the grounds, or reasons, and general procedures for filing a Motion to Dismiss in a Connecticut civil lawsuit. Getting in touch with a lawyer to help you is a good idea. But, if you decide to act as your own lawyer, the following is information to think about regarding this motion. Screen 3 Some words to know A Motion means a pleading or paper filed in a case, usually written, asking or requesting the court to make a decision or judgment on something. It is filed in the Clerk’s Office. The word Dismiss means to end the lawsuit or case. Jurisdiction refers to the power and authority of the court to hear and make a decision or judgment in a lawsuit or case. Venue means the physical location of the court, the specific Judicial District courthouse. Standing means that a person, business, or governmental entity has a legal right to sue in the court. An example of a legal right is when there is a real controversy between the parties that the court can hear and provide relief to a party or parties. There can be many factors that determine if a person, business, or governmental entity has standing. Screen 4 Some more words to know The word Process refers to all the legally required paperwork to begin a lawsuit, including the complaint and the writ of summons, which is an official legal document requiring a person to appear in court to answer a complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • United Healthcare Corporation Class Action Litigation Frequently Asked Questions
    United Healthcare Corporation Class Action Litigation Frequently Asked Questions 1. Overview 2. What benefits does the Settlement provide? 3. Why did I receive this information when I was never a subscriber or out-of-network provider? 4. Why did I receive more than one Notice? 5. I believe I am a Class Member, but I did not receive the Notice and Claim Form. How can I obtain a copy of these documents? 6. What are my options? 7. What do I need to do in order to take part in this class action and receive a payment? 8. How much money am I likely to receive from this class action? 9. When can I expect to receive my payment? 10. If I missed the filing deadline, will my late claim be accepted? 11. How can I exclude myself from this Settlement? 12. I am a primary insured. Should my claim have information for the medical services and supplies I personally used, or those used by my family (myself and the dependents listed in my coverage)? 13. I have a number of healthcare services claims that UHC denied completely. Can I make a claim for such denied medical services? 14. The Notice says that I may request certain claims information. What do I need to do? 15. I am a Provider and would like to know whether some of the patients that owe me money filed claims in this case. What do I need to do? 16. Some of the information on my record of medical services is either missing or wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill of Particulars—A Very Powerful Tool
    Demand for a Bill of Particulars—A Very Powerful Tool What discovery methods do you consider when you are strategizing about the most effective method to obtain the information you need to pin down your opponent? If you are defending a contract case, think about serving a Demand for Bill of Particulars. A Demand for Bill of Particulars is NOT a discovery device, but an extension of the complaint or a cross-complaint [complaint]. It is a cost-effective method with a turnaround time of 10 days and if the court finds that any of the line items are deficient it can strike the entry and preclude plaintiff/cross- complainant [plaintiff] from proving the debt is owed. Unlike interrogatories and deposition responses where contradictory evidence can be admitted by the plaintiff, the Bill of Particulars is conclusive as to the items and amounts claimed and no other evidence is admissible at trial. What is a Demand for Bill of Particulars? The Demand for a Bill of Particulars presumes that the plaintiff suing has a “book” or “contemporaneous ledger” or an “account” to support any charges when the complaint was filed and provides a court process to require that it be presented upon demand. The account, unlike the pleading in a complaint, is supposed to “furnish a defendant with the details of the items charged against him…” Meredith v. Marks (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 265, 269. This procedure dates back to early common law when plaintiff sued on an alleged account, and the pleadings gave no specifics as to the nature of the claim –i.e., whether contract, quasi-contract etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 – Civil Case Procedures
    GENERAL DISTRICT COURT MANUAL CIVIL CASE PROCEDURES Page 6-1 Chapter 6 – Civil Case Procedures Introduction Civil cases are brought to enforce, redress, or protect the private rights of an individual, organization or government entity. The remedies available in a civil action include the recovery of money damages and the issuance of a court order requiring a party to the suit to complete an agreement or to refrain from some activity. The party who initiates the suit is the “plaintiff,” and the party against whom the suit is brought is the “defendant.” In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove his case by “a preponderance of the evidence.” Any person who is a plaintiff in a civil action in a court of the Commonwealth and a resident of the Commonwealth or a defendant in a civil action in a court of the Commonwealth, and who is on account of his poverty unable to pay fees or costs, may be allowed by the court to sue or defendant a suit therein without paying fees and costs. The person may file the DC-409, PETITION FOR PROCEEDING IN CIVIL CASE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS . In determining a person’s ability to pay fees or costs on account of his/her poverty, the court shall consider whether such person is current recipient of a state and federally funded public assistance program for the indigent or is represented by legal aid society, including an attorney appearing as counsel, pro bono or assigned or referred by legal aid society. If so, such person shall be presumed unable to pay such fees and costs.
    [Show full text]