Matters specified in requests for admission deemed admitted in California

A motion to have the matters specified in requests for admission deemed admitted in California is the topic of this blog post.

A motion to have the matters specified in requests for admission deemed admitted in California is also known as an order establishing the truth of each matter specified in the requests for admissions that were served on the other party.

The matters specified may be the truth of certain facts, or the genuineness of certain documents.

Requests for admissions are very useful in that they allow a party to get certain admissions or denials of issues relevant to the lawsuit on record before the trial, as well as authenticating certain documents.

If you can get an order establishing the truth of each matter specified in the requests for admissions that will greatly increase your chances of prevailing at trial.

Law authorizing requests for admission deemed admitted in California.

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.280(b), if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a response, the propounding party may move the court for an order establishing the truth of each matter specified in the requests for admission.  Section 2033.280 contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.

And it is mandatory that the Court grant the order unless code compliant responses are served before the hearing on the motion.

The court shall make this order unless it finds that the party to whom the request for admissions was served, before the hearing on the motion, served a proposed response to the Request for Admissions that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220  See Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(b).

No informal “meet-and confer” requirement attaches before a party may bring a motion for an order establishing admissions. Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395.

Additionally, there is no time limit on bringing motions to have matters deemed admitted. Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1584.

Failure of the responding party to serve the requested responses in “substantial compliance” with the code prior to the hearing on a motion makes it mandatory that the court grant the admissions motion, Demyer, Supra, at pp. 395-396.

No separate statement is required when no response has been provided to the discovery. California Rule of Court 3.1345(b).

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under § 2023 on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to request for admissions necessitated an application for an order establishing admissions. Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 634.

Sample motion to have the matters specified in requests for admission deemed admitted in California for sale.

Attorneys or parties in the State of California who wish to view a sample motion for an order having matters deemed admitted can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. Mr. Burman offers legal research and document preparation assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters for attorneys and law firms on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at View over 300 sample legal documents for sale

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.”

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

Responses to requests for admission in Federal Court

Responses to requests for admission in Federal Court are the topic of this blog post.

The responses to requests for admission in Federal Court must be served on the propounding party and all other parties to the action within 30 days after service unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court.   This time period is extended to 33 days if the requests for admission were served by mail.

Requests for admission are governed by Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in United States District Court and Rule 7036 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

The importance of serving timely responses cannot be stressed enough as Rule 36(a)(3) states that, “A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.”

The responses must also comply with Rule 36(a)(4) which states that, “If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.”

Rule 36(a)(5) states that, “The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.”

The responding party should also keep in mind that the Federal courts in particular are notoriously intolerant of generic or “boilerplate” objections that are interposed without any supporting facts.

Examples include “vague and ambiguous” where no details are provided as to why the request for admission is vague and ambiguous. The use of boilerplate objections with no supporting facts may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions as well as waiver of the objections.

The responses must be signed under oath and the attorney must sign any response that contains any objections.

Sample responses to requests for admission in Federal Court for sale.

Attorneys or parties who would like to view a portion of sample 9 page responses to requests for admission in United States District Court under Rule 36 containing brief instructions for responding, a generic verification under oath with notary acknowledgment for use in most states, a specific verification for California only, and proof of service by mail sold by the author can see below.

 

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. Mr. Burman offers legal research and document preparation assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters for attorneys and law firms on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at View over 300 sample legal documents for sale

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.”

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

Motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions in California

A motion to compel further responses to requests for admission in California is the topic of this blog post.

This blog post will discuss the filing of a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission in California.

Law authorizing a motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions in California.

A motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions in California is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(a) states in pertinent part that, ”On receipt of a response to requests for admission, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular requests is evasive or incomplete.(2) An objection to a request is without merit or too general. “

“The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under 2016.40.”  See Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(b).

Requirements for motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions in California.

A motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions in California is similar to most other motions to compel in that a separate statement must be concurrently filed and served as required pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345.

The separate statement must contain each request for admission, each response, and the basis for a further response.

It is good practice to combine the sending of meet and confer letters (at least two) with telephone calls with the responding party or their counsel as some Judges will deny motions to compel if they feel that the moving party did not make a reasonable good faith effort to meet and confer to avoid the need for judicial intervention.

And the motion to compel must be filed within 45 days of service of the responses or the party waives any right to compel further responses unless both the requesting and responding party have agreed in writing to extend the time to file any motion to compel.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(c) states that, “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.

Monetary sanctions are mandatory except in specified situations.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(d) states that, “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Sample motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions in California for sale.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample 20 page motion to compel further responses to requests for admission containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, separate statement, sample declaration and proof of service by mail sold by the author can see below.

 

California discovery litigation document package

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at View over 300 sample legal documents for sale

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.”

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in Bankruptcy Court

A Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in Bankruptcy Court is the topic of this blog post.

A Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in Bankruptcy Court is filed under the provisions of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024 which incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Rule 60) into practice under the Bankruptcy Code.

A motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) is filed on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party is the topic of this blog post.

Rule 60 states in pertinent part that “(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:  (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.”

Note that the motion must be filed no later than one year after the entry of the judgment as Rule 60 states that “(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion. (1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”

A motion to vacate a judgment on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party is the appropriate motion for situations where the moving party can make a very strong showing that the fraud or other misconduct resulted in a verdict against them, and that the conduct prevented them from fully and fairly presenting their claim or defense.

However the “moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense.” Casey v. Albertson’s, Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing De Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000).

If you become aware of fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by an adverse party that resulted in a decision or verdict against you and prevented you from fairly presenting your case you will need to act quickly if you want to increase the chances of having the motion granted as the law is settled in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere that a district court has great discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion under Rule 60. It is subject to review only for abuse of discretion.

However the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has stated that this rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted.)

Sample Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in United States Bankruptcy Court for sale.

Attorneys or parties in civil litigation in United States Bankruptcy Court who wish to view a portion of an 11 page sample motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://legaldocspro.net

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate a judgment in Bankruptcy Court

A Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate a judgment in Bankruptcy Court is the topic of this blog post.

A Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate a judgment in Bankruptcy Court is filed under the provisions of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024 which incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Rule 60) into practice under the Bankruptcy Code.

A motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) is filed on the grounds of newly discovered evidence.

Rule 60 states in pertinent part that “(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).” And Rule 60 also states that “(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion. (1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”

The evidence that is contended to be newly discovered must be evidence that with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b). Rule 59(b) states that, “A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.”

If you become aware of new evidence that is material to your claim or defense and you could not have discovered earlier  you need to act quickly if you want to increase the chances of having their motion granted as the law is settled in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere that a  court has great discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion under Rule 60. It is subject to review only for abuse of discretion.

In discussing Rule 60 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has stated that this rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted.)

See also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, “The Federal Rules should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

“Rule 60(b) is ‘remedial in nature and . . . must be liberally applied.’ ” TCI Group Life Ins. v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted.)

Sample Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate a judgment in Bankruptcy Court for sale.

Attorneys or parties in litigation in United States Bankruptcy Court who wish to view a sample motion to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) sold by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://legaldocspro.net

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

California and Federal litigation

%d bloggers like this: