Since I've learned this rule, I always lived under an impression that the deadline to post jury fees is a "hard" deadline: one who misses it, deemed waived her/his right to a jury trial. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 631(f)(5)*). When the rule was amended in the middle of 2012, some pending cases got caught mid-way with the change, leading to unexpected quirks in the local procedure. This recent decision may become handy for arguing failures to post jury fees under the new version of CCP 631.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
$1.7 million default judgment is possible, even after a 473(b) motion.
Obtaining a default judgment is not easy. And if the judgment debtor later moves to set default and a judgment aside, especially if done on "mandatory" grounds of attorney's mistake [CCP 473(b)], courts often read it as equally a mandatory requirement to grant the requested relief. Often, but not always. This recent case presents a rare situation, when a simple act of submitting a declaration with an acknowledgement of fault did not help. The case is even more unique because of its facts: the judgment at stake was for a significant amount of $1.7 million, and the party asking to set it aside submitted not one, but several declarations regarding its attorney's fault.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Involuntary Un-Servitude
There is a recent move in the State of New York to increase the age limit for judges, to allow them to serve beyond the currently imposed 70 years. New York Times' article states that there are more than 30 states, plus D.C., that have an age limit on jurists. I found the article very interesting: it gives a reader a broad set of facts and, at least to me, feels like an exam set, inviting to "discuss this" and spot possible issues. I came up with these:
Friday, June 7, 2013
Verification on behalf of a dissolved or non-existent corporation
Can a non-existent or a dissolved corporation verify its discovery responses? Even if there is no human agent or officer left around? Court in a recent decision in Melendrez v. Los Angeles Sup. Ct. (In re: Special Electric Co.), 215 Cal.App.4th 1343 (2013), says "yes" and comes up with no less than three alternative solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)