Are you rusty (california procedure)?

Are you a lawyer, lawyer or legal secretary returning to the world of lawsuits in California? Regardless of whether you temporarily switched to transactional work, voluntarily took time off to raise your children, or fell victim to the economic crisis, it is illegal that you continue to make changes to the civil procedure in California in the interim period. Admit it. You are rusty.

Do you know the old adage: “A little knowledge can be dangerous”? This may be so true if you are rusty. The problem is that you think you know what you are doing, because you did it just a few months ago, and instead of checking the rules, you can just go ahead and do it, for example, make a move in the wrong format, give a hearing notice too late, calendar date preceding the set date. Unfortunately, you illegally discover that something has changed, and that you have made a serious mistake before you have done so.

Having outdated requirements can have serious consequences, including giving up the right to do what you were trying to do. That is why it is so important to use the updated California step-by-step guide, for example, Trial by Numbers Fourth Edition, and keep it up to date by subscribing to the Update Service twice a year.

In addition to the fact that when performing a given task, an updated information will be used, a trained lawyer will benefit by focusing on what has changed. Below are some changes to the California Rules of the Court, the California Code of Civil Procedure and the Judicial Board Form introduced from January 2009 to 2011, starting in 2011. There is a link to earlier changes at the end of this article. [This list was compiled from cover memos sent to Litigation By The Numbers®-Fourth Edition Update Service subscribers over the past few years. To get your own copy, just go to the Buy page of our website. We offer a 100% money back guaranty.]

July 2011 Changes

CHANGES TO THE RULES, CODE AND FORM OF THE STATE

Proof of service and interconnection (POS-040 and POS-040 (P)) was revised as they had to be in January to change the “email address” to “email service”.

Rule 3.670 (i) adds uniform fees for scheduling phone calls, an additional charge for a late request for the appearance of a telephone, and cancellation fees are charged instead.

The case management statement was revised to add a new section with detailed information on ADR.

CRC, Rule 3.1113 no longer requires submission of copies of non-CA-organs and unpublished cases; the court may order the provision of housing. Upon request, the applicant must immediately provide a copy of the authority other than to the CA. The revised rule details what should be included in the quote in the unpublished case.

CHANGES TO THE COURT OF LOS ANGELES

The application for closing a civil case (Los Angeles County court form) has been revised.

Reorganization of rules - LASCR is ultimately reorganized and renumbered in action on 7/1/11. The court's website has “proposed rules” and new rules, as well as correlation tables showing new / old numbers.

The former LASCR, Rule 9.0 (c), which required that documents exceeding a thickness of 3 "to be divided into volumes, be deleted in the revised rules, be limited to the Stanley-Mosk Court.

The Stanley-Mosk Courthouse requests copies of all documents filed seven days or less before the hearing.

January 2011 Changes

Changes in California ships web sites. The Judicial Council initially announced that the California Courts website would be redesigned and launched some time in January, and then postponed until February. Whenever this happens, the address changes from “courtinfo.ca.gov” to “court.ca.gov”. Some page titles remain unchanged, for example, “/ forms, / rules”. It is expected that the old links will work for some time, or at least redirect to a new home page.

Days of limited service. “Furlough Days” (preceded and succeeded “days of court closing” (see July 29, 2009 “Urgency Legislation”) were replaced by “limited days of service” - days when courts can close one or more courtrooms or reduce hours or several of their clerks; offices or both. Courts can develop a limited life span after 60 days; The Judicial Council publishes notices on its website. As of January 1, 2011, Lassen counties, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Cruz notified of a limited lifespan.

The calendar process associated with hearing. The new CCP § 12c requires that the dates associated with the hearing be calculated by counting back from the date of the hearing, starting with the statutory expiration (for example, 16 days of trial for regular traffic), and then continue to return to add an extension based on the service method, for example, 5 days for postal service in California). Although this section brings much needed certainty, determining the first available hearing date presents various problems that can lead to adequate notification.

Electronic service. Electronic service now includes “electronic transmission” and “electronic notification”, the first means sending the document by e-mail as an attachment, the latter means that the e-mail is a hyperlink where the document can be opened and downloaded. CRC, Rule 2.251 (previously 2.260) imposes various obligations on the party served by the electronic notification to maintain the hyperlink and the integrity of the document. The Judicial Council forms links to the links to the electronic service from the “email address of the notice” to “the email address of the email service”, but it is neglected by the changes in the multipurpose POS-040. It will be revised in July. Sentence. If you have a service form for POS through an electronic service, change it to the link “service email address”.

Offered orders. Offered orders can no longer be submitted to the opposite side. CRC, Rule 3.1312 (a) was revised from January 1, 2011 to require them to be delivered “in a manner reasonably designed to ensure delivery by the end of the next business day”. In addition, there are new rules for electronic submission of proposals to the court (CRC, rule 3.1312 (c)). Two versions of the proposed order should be submitted with the new mandatory Judicial Council in the form of EFS-020 “Proposed Order (title page)”.

Accelerated jury trial. The CCP §§ 630.01-630.10 establishes the accelerated jury trial; CRC, 3.1545-3.1552 sets out detailed judicial procedures in accordance with the Law. In principle, the jury is smaller (9 instead of 12, without alternative); the case must be judged in one day; time for voir dire is limited to 15 minutes per side; time for placement on the case is limited to 3 hours per side; the parties waive the right to appeal and make certain motions after the trial; he has his set of deadlines; this allows the parties to enter into “high / low agreements”, guaranteeing a claim of minimum reward and limiting the defensive power of a minor jury sentence.

Demurrers. CRC, Rule 3.1320 (j) clarifies that the guardian has 10 days to respond or otherwise announce at the expiration date to make amendments if the permission for the change has been granted to the demonstrator.

Record of execution. CCP § 699.520 was revised to add to the “Rules of Enforcement”: (1) a limited or unlimited case and (2) a type of legal entity receivables. Form Writ of Execution will not change until 2012.

The fee increases. Many fees increased until the end of 2010. The fee for petitions on aggregate judgment increased from $ 200 to $ 500.

Changes in 2010

New forms of judicial advice. The Judicial Council adopted a new optional “Notice of a decision or order”. There are also three new optional forms related to the electronic service: “Consent to electronic service and notification of the address of the electronic notification”, “Notification of the change of the electronic address of the notification” and “Proof of the electronic service”.

Revised Rule Proof Electronic Service. CRC, Rule 2.260 (f) no longer requires confirmation of service by using an electronic service to state that "the transfer was reported as complete and without error." The multifunctional POS-040 has been revised to reflect this change. If you have created a multipurpose internal form, you can remove this now obsolete language from the section on electronic service. Do not delete it from the fax service section — it is still required for the fax service.

Statements about decision making and proposed decisions. CRC, Rule 3.1590, regarding the approval of a decision and the proposed trial process. The time during which the proposed decision statement was prepared has changed, as has the time during which the court must sign the proposed decision.

Appeal time. CRC, Rule 8.104 revised time for filing a notice of appeal. The rule indicates that a notice of decision input can be filed in any way — it should not be processed (despite the clear CCP language § 664.5) —and the time for filing a notice of appeal begins with the service, as opposed to sending a notice. [The Judicial Council did not change the mailing vs. service rule as to any other deadline dependent upon mailing notice of entry, ie, memo of costs, motion for attorneys fees, etc. Look for those in the future.]

Urgency Legislation - July 29, 2009

On July 29, 2009, significant changes occurred as a result of the current economic crisis.

Closing ships. From September 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009, the third Wednesday of each month is the court’s closing date - a day that is considered to be a non-dual day for calendar purposes. (This change was proposed to be codified as a new rule 1.12, but the proposal was discarded).

The Judicial Council will meet on April 23, 2010, to decide how to proceed during the court’s closing hours after June 2010. Follow the events!

California Electronic Discovery Act. The California Registration Act, which monitors the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, was signed into law and immediately entered into force on July 29, 2009.

January 2009 Changes

Village. As a background, when the matter is settled, it is supposed to be terminated within the specified 45-day period (45 days after the settlement date, if the settlement is “unconditional”, or 45 days after the settlement is considered if the settlement is “conditional "). (See the Judicial Council Form “Notice of Settlement of the Whole Case”). In the past, if the case was not dismissed by the parties during this period, the court would deny the OSC registration, and the parties should appear to explain the delays and request more time.

CRC, Rule 3.1385 now provides that if a case that has been settled is related to a compromise of a minor’s claim or a person with a disability, if court approval is required (thus delaying the completion of the settlement), the court cannot conduct the OSC early release until the hearing will not approve the settlement. In addition, there is currently a mechanism for continuing the release of the OSC without appearing. Specific documents must be submitted no later than five days before the prescribed 45th day. (See CRC, Rule 3.1385 for more information on what should be presented.)

Forms of judicial advice.

Currently, there is a mandatory form of judicial advice "Call - Correspondence." (You no longer accept the form “Appeals” and do not agree with it for use with a cross-complaint).

In addition to being filed in difficult cases, the Civil Business Sheet should now be filed in “Collection Cases” (type of case created by CRC, Rule 3.740 in July 2007, discussed below). (CRC, rule 3.220)

Changes until 2009

You should be aware of several changes to codes, rules and forms established before January 2009. An attempt was made to present them in the order in which they would arise during the case.

Reorganization / renumbering rules. California court rules have been completely reorganized; every rule number has changed.

Document format. The inclusion of fax numbers and e-mail addresses on applications, etc., filed in court, is no longer mandatory. Now required if the number / address is "available." (CRC, rule 2.111)

Are called upon. The court clerk now retains the original call. (CCP § 412.10). You no longer need to resend it to the clerk when you request input by default.

Electronic filing and maintenance. In this area, a new vocabulary is presented (“e-service provider”, “e-filter”, “e-mail notification”) and a constantly changing procedure varies from court to court. Be sure to read the CRC, Rules 2.250 and 2.260 before proceeding with electronic filing or electronic service. For electronic filtering, check your local rules to determine if they accept an electronic application in your type of case and how you do it, for example, directly in court or through an electronic service provider.

Collectible case. The new CRC, Rule 3.740 creates “Collectibles”. They are actions to recover money owed in an amount determined to be defined, not exceeding $ 25,000, with the exception of interest and attorneys ’fees arising from a transaction in which property, services or money were purchased on credit and which were not looking for tort or fines, foreclosure of real or personal property or a deliberate court order. Rule 3.740 excludes collections of Cases from the legal deadlines for submitting Confirmation of the Service of Appeal and receiving jurisdiction by default and sets different deadlines.

Proof of service.

The evidence of the Service in a multiparty case must identify the party represented. (CRC, Rule 1.21 (c))

The first patent must maintain fax lists in all cases where the parties have agreed to accept the service by fax, and all parties are required to maintain the list along with any order, notice or statement on the party that has not yet appeared (CRC, Rule 3.254)

Currently, there are four additional certificates of service at the Judicial Council. Multipurpose POS-040 is especially useful.

Regular movements.

Deadlines for filing and servicing for regular applications (from January 2005):

Notice of a motion must be filed no less than 16 cents before the hearing.

Contradictions must be filed and filed at least 9 trunks before the hearing.

Responses to opposition to regular petitions must be submitted and filed at least 5 days before the hearing.

Contradictions and responses must be submitted so that they are received by the end of the next business day. (CCP § 1005 (b))

The appearance of the phone. Appearance on the phone is now approved. The intention to appear in a telephone form may be indicated in moving, opposing or responding documents. It can be arranged up to three days of trial (instead of five days of trial) before the hearing. A party receiving a notice of the other party’s intentions by telephone may notify the intention to appear by telephone by noon on the day of the trial prior to the hearing. (CRC, Rule 3.670)

Movements for final judgment (“MSJ”) and summary of judgment (“MSA”). There have been significant changes in MSJ and MSA:

The deadline for filing objections to evidence in MSJ & SAS and MSA has been changed. Now they must be presented with opposition and / or response (in contrast to the previous rule, which allowed submitting documents three days before the hearing). (CRC, Rule 3.1354 (a))

Objections must conform to a specific format. (CRC, Rule 3.1354 (b))

Objections must be accompanied by the proposed procedure, which must correspond to a specific format. (CRC, Rule 3.1354 (c))

Changed mandatory format for individual operators for MSJ and MSA. (CRC, Rule 3.1350 (h))

It would be so easy to break these rules! All you have to do is rely on your previous rusty knowledge, your rusty file and, if you are not using computerized rule-based scheduling, your equally rusty cheat list. If, for example, without first checking for procedural changes, you pull out a motion response for summary judgment from a form file to use as a template, you will create your objections to evidence in the wrong format. You also will not be able to submit the proposed order at all or create it in the wrong format. Then, if you customize your deadlines manually, and you use an outdated cheat list, you should put it all aside by submitting your objections to the alert too late.

If the objection to the evidence is not constantly filed or is not presented in the proper format, the court may ignore it. (См., Например, Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1278, в котором суд, ссылаясь на правило 3.1354 (b), отметил, что "