Oppositions to motions to dismiss under Rule 4(m) in United States District Court

Oppositions to motions to dismiss a complaint for a failure to timely serve a defendant under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 4(m)”) are the topic of this blog post.   The author of this blog post mainly works on cases from California, however the issues discussed herein are applicable to any civil case in a United States District Court that is within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rule 4(m) states in pertinent part that, “If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”

A plaintiff facing a motion to dismiss under Rule 4(m) should emphasize the diligent efforts they have made to serve any defendant or defendants to defeat any motion to dismiss under Rule 4(m) because of failure to effect service in a timely manner.  If timely service has not been made a plaintiff should make a showing to the Court of good cause for the failure to timely serve a defendant.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has characterized good cause, at a minimum, as "excusable neglect." Electrical Specialty Co. v. Road Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 312 (9th Cir.1992)

And the United States Supreme Court has stated that district courts have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m). In Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 661 (1996), the Supreme Court stated that Rule 4's 120-day time period for service "operates not as an outer limit subject to reduction, but as an irreducible allowance."

The Ninth Circuit has also stated in a case from 2007 that courts making extension decisions under Rule 4(m) may take the following factors into account: the statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant, a defendant having actual notice of the lawsuit or evading service, a defendant concealing a defect in attempted service, and length of delay before eventual service.

And the Ninth Circuit has also stated in two different cases that a district court may extend the time for service retroactively even after the 120-day service period has expired.

Attorneys or parties in civil litigation in United States District Court who wish to view a sample opposition to a motion to dismiss for a failure to timely serve a defendant under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sold by the author can see below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/137301520/Sample-Opposition-to-Rule-4-m-Motion-to-Dismiss-for-United-States-District-Court

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author's weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm

To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

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 Family Limited Partnerships for Asset Protection

California Family Limited Partnerships (FLP) as they are used in Asset (Lawsuit) protection is the topic of this blog post. The Lawsuit protection area is a growing concern of many people as California is well known worldwide as a very litigious state. As a well known lawyer joke goes, "Why did New Jersey get all of the toxic waste dumps while California got all of the lawyers. New Jersey got first choice."

The author has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has seen things that are astounding to put it mildly.  Many years ago, he worked on a case preparing an answer to a complaint for someone who was being sued because he had performed some work for someone whose house had slid down a hill.  The person being sued was the electrical contractor!!!!  There were so many defendants listed in the complaint that listing all of them on the caption took almost the whole first two pages of the complaint.  Now that is outrageous!!

While most attorneys are ethical and would never dream of taking on a case like that, some are not so ethical and will gladly file lawsuits just to get some "nuisance money." And many also work with process servers who are unethical to say the least. The author once saw a case where a process server claimed to personally serve someone at a house in California when the individuals had sold the house and moved to Texas over 10 years before, and to top if off was at the exact moment of alleged "service" in California on an airplane flight to the Philippines!!

Clearly for certain individuals, especially those with substantial business and/or personal assets, Lawsuit protection should be looked upon as insurance.

Lawsuit protection generally involves the use of one or more different entities which can protect valuable assets from creditors and judgments.  Proper use of an FLP is a very effective technique. The entity is set up as a limited partnership with special provisions to provide the asset protection features.   In some cases a corporation can be designated as a general partner.

In using an FLP all personal and business assets are generally placed into this partnership. The family house, bank or brokerage accounts, and other real estate investments would be transferred into the partnership. Multiple partnerships can be set up to hold substantial and diverse investments.

These techniques are very effective, because in the event of a lawsuit or a judgment, creditors will generally not be able to reach inside the partnership and seize any of these assets. Under California law, and the law of most other states as well, a creditor has no right to execute or levy on partnership assets with a judgment against one of the partners.  This law applies to Limited Liability Companies as well and is contained in the California Corporations Code.

The California Supreme Court has stated that, under the proper circumstances, the ONLY remedy that a creditor can use is called a "charging order".  See Evans v. Galardi (1976) 16 Cal.3d 300, 310.  If any cash is distributed to a person by the FLP, the creditor can take that cash to satisfy the judgment. If no distributions are made to that person, the creditor will receive nothing.

The partnership can sell assets and retain or reinvest the proceeds, however if no money comes out to that person there is nothing for the creditor to take. A creditor cannot take a person’s interest in management and control of the partnership and cannot take any of the assets in the partnership. Also the creditor may be subject to tax on any income allocated on the partnerships tax returns. This fact is truly a "shark repellent."

If it is properly structured, the FLP can provide an entity to protect the assets of individuals, couples and families from the claims of creditors.

Assuming that the transfer of the assets to the FLP was not a fraudulent conveyance under State law, the ability of a creditor of a partner or member to reach the assets of the FLP is extremely limited due to several facts such as:

(i) The creditor can only become an assignee of the Partner's interest.

(ii) The creditor would not be entitled to exercise any of the rights or powers of a partner.

(iii) The only result of the assignment would be to entitle the assignee to receive the distributions and allocations of profits and losses to which the assignor would be entitled.

(iv) This places the creditor in a relatively poor bargaining position vis-a-viz the FLP and may make it possible to repurchase the interest from the creditor at a steeply discounted price.

(v) The partnership agreement can provide that the FLP (or its partners) have the option to purchase the interest of a partner in the event the interest is seized by or otherwise transferred to a creditor utilizing extended payment terms, in some cases 15 years or more (see the sample FLP below), in the event the option is exercised.

With so many people concerned about frivolous lawsuits the use of an FLP in California is a choice that growing numbers of people, especially ones who have accumulated substantial assets, are using.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a sample Family Limited Partnership Agreement sold by the author which contains the purchase option mentioned above can see below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/131802627/Sample-California-Family-Limited-Partnership-Agreement

The author of this blog post is a freelance paralegal and entrepreneur who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm

To view all of the sample documents sold by the author visit http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro/documents

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

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.

These 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)(1) motions to vacate on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect in the Ninth Circuit

Rule 60(b)(1) motions to vacate a default judgment on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect are the topic of this blog post.    The author mainly works on cases within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals so the majority of the cases cited herein are from that circuit. Readers located in other circuits should research cases from their particular circuit.

Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“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: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  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.”

As with a motion to vacate a default judgment in California, it should be noted that Rule 60 does state that the motion must be made within a reasonable time.  Anyone who finds out that a default judgment has been entered against them needs to act quickly if they want to increase the chances of having their 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.  They should also be sure to emphasize their defenses against the judgment as showing a meritorious defense is necessary.

A district court’s denial of a motion to set aside either default under Rule 55(c) or default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1), is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Mesle”); TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695 (9th Cir. 2001) (“TCI”).

The first step of our abuse of discretion test is to determine de novo whether the trial court identified the correct legal rule to apply to the relief requested. The second step . . . is to determine whether the trial court’s application of the correct legal standard was (1) “illogical”, (2) “implausible,” or (3) without “support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record. United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Where a defendant seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1) based upon “excusable neglect,” the court applies the same three factors governing the inquiry into “good cause” under Rule 55(c). Mesle, supra 615 F.3d at 1091.

Those factors are: (1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced, (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether culpable conduct of the defendant led to the default. Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984).

Again the motion can be denied if it is shown that the moving defendant was culpable, and that conduct led to the default.  Although the law is settled that Rule 60 is remedial in nature, and should be liberally construed so that cases can be tried on the merits.

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.)

To determine whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes “excusable neglect,” courts must apply a four factor equitable test, examining: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993); Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (adopting this test for consideration of Rule 60(b) motions).

The United States Supreme Court has stated that the determination of what conduct constitutes “excusable neglect” under Rule 60(b)(1) and similar rules “is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Svcs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).

While a Rule 60 motion has a longer deadline than a California motion to vacate a default judgment it does differ in that showing a meritorious defense is required.

Attorneys or parties in civil litigation in United States District Court who wish to view a sample motion to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) sold by the author can see below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135549442/Sample-Motion-to-Vacate-Default-Judgment-Under-Rule-60-b-1

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author's weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm

To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

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.

These 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.

Answers to civil complaints in United States District Court

Answers to civil complaints in United States District Court are the topic of this blog post.  Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifies the time period that a defendant has to answer or otherwise respond, that time period is 21 calendar days after being served with the summons and complaint, unless a party has waived service under Rule 4(d) or other exceptions apply which are listed in Rule 12.

 Any party served with a complaint should carefully review the complaint and each claim for relief that is asserted in the complaint. This is important as a complaint that does not state a claim for relief is subject to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a claim for relief.

The general practice is for a defendant to deny each statement in the complaint that is untrue and admit each statement that is true. See Rule 8 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  If a defendant does not have sufficient information either to admit or deny a statement in the complaint, a statement may be used such as “Defendant has no information or belief that the allegations of paragraph __ are true so defendant denies them.”

Note that any allegations of the complaint that are not specifically denied are deemed admitted.

In addition to admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, defendant should include in their answer any legal defenses they may have. See Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A legal defense is one in which, even assuming that all plaintiff’s allegations in the  complaint were true, the law does not permit the plaintiff to win the case. Defendant  should be careful in deciding whether to raise a defense as Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that certain defenses may be waived if they are not raised in the answer or a pre-answer motion.

In other words, if a defendant fails to raise a legal defense in their answer, they may not be able to raise it later in the case. Defendant should also state enough facts for each legal defense. If they fail to do so a plaintiff may file a motion to strike the defense under Rule 12(f) on the grounds of an insufficient defense, or an immaterial allegation.

Attorneys or parties in who would like to view a sample answer to a civil complaint in United States District Court sold by the author can see below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135536451/Sample-Answer-to-Complaint-for-Federal-Litigation

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author's weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm

To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

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.

These 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 12(b)(5) motions to dismiss a complaint for insufficient service of process

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/motion-to-dismiss-under-rule-12b5-in-united-states-district-court/

Rule 12(f) motions to strike affirmative defenses in United States District Court

Rule 12(f) motions to strike affirmative defenses asserted in an answer to a complaint in United States District Court civil litigation are the topic of this blog post.  Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part that a district court "may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."

In most cases, a motion to strike affirmative defenses is made on the grounds that the affirmative defenses in the answer do not state a sufficient defense, or that the allegations are not relevant to the causes of action in the complaint and constitute immaterial or impertinent allegations which should be stricken.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that "The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . ." Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) (overruled on other grounds in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

The Ninth Circuit has defined “immaterial” matter as “that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d, supra at 1527 (9th Cir.1993) (internal citation omitted) (overruled on other grounds, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

While motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are disfavored, a very good argument can be made that any answer that contains affirmative defenses that are insufficient, or contain immaterial allegations should be stricken to avoid having to litigate spurious issues. Plaintiffs in civil litigation in United States District court are increasingly filing motions to strike deficient or immaterial affirmative defenses contained in answers to complaints.

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involved a case where a Rule 12(f) motion to strike affirmative defenses was filed by a plaintiff and was granted. The Judge applied a heightened pleading standard to the affirmative defenses in that case.

Any plaintiff who has been served with an answer by a defendant that contains affirmative defenses that do not state a sufficient defense and allegations that are not relevant to the causes of action in the complaint and are immaterial or impertinent allegations should consider filing a motion to strike under Rule 12(f).

Attorneys or parties in civil litigation in United States District Court who wish to view a sample motion to strike affirmative defenses in an answer pursuant to Rule 12(f) can see below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136643746/Sample-Motion-to-Strike-Affirmative-Defenses-in-Answer-for-United-States-District-Court

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author's weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm

To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

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.

These 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 legal research tips

California legal research tips are the topic of this blog post.  I will be assuming that the reader has a basic understanding of what types of legal materials are available for California. I will concentrate mainly on legal research for California as it relates to case law.

There are three basic kinds of published cases for California.

California Supreme Court cases that are published in the California Official Reports. All decisions of the Supreme Court are published in the California Official Reports. See California Rule of Court 8.1105. Cited as Cal. or C.

California Court of Appeal cases that are published in the California Official Appellate Reports. Only certain decisions of the Court of Appeal are published. Cited as Cal.App., or CA.

Cases from the Appellate Division of various Superior Courts in California. Each county has an Appellate Division. Only certain cases of the Appellate Divisions are published. The cases are published in the California Official Appellate Reports Supplement, cited as Cal. App. Supp., or CA Supp.

Only published cases can be cited or relied upon unless they fall under an exception. See California Rule of Court 8.1115. Thus it is vital to ensure that any case you are looking at is in fact a published case.

Remember that just because a case has a California Reporter, Daily Journal, Lexis or other citation does NOT mean that it has been published in the Official Reports. Be sure to verify that the case is published before using it. Failure to do so is a big mistake!

It is also essential that you READ THE ENTIRE CASE to ensure that it is applicable to your situation. This author has on numerous occasions read a motion that cites a case and when he read the case he found that it either, (a) did not really say what was claimed by the opposing party, or (b) that the case did say some of what was quoted, but it was taken out of context, such as for example, in one case the opposing party had claimed that a California Supreme Court case supported their demurrer to a cross-complaint, however the case cited did not support their demurrer, it in fact supported the opposition! The author discovered that fact after reading the exact page number cited. In other words the opposing party did not even read the case at all.   That was a huge mistake!!

Obviously their tactic did not work as the demurrer was overruled. Remember that the short summary of a case does not always tell you how the Court ruled. For that you need to actually read it. Don’t get caught like a deer stuck in the headlights. Read every case that you cite from start to finish. And read every case cited by your opponent from start to finish. You will be surprised how many attorneys and parties fail to read a case before citing it. All they read is the short blurb in the annotated code, or in a legal treatise. 

If you have access to a law library, looking through the indexes, such as the West index for California, or another treatise such as CA JUR for the legal issue you are researching, or one of the Rutter Group books published on your legal topic, is highly recommended. To discover the essential elements of a particular cause of action checking the California Civil Jury Instructions known as CACI is extremely helpful as the elements for most civil causes of action are included as well as many affirmative defenses.

That can save you literally hours of research time as opposed to other methods. Of course if you have online access to either Westlaw® or Lexis® then you have a tremendous resource available to you. Make the most of it. Both companies offer training in how to use their database. Both companies also offer access to their database on a pay per use basis but that can be very expensive if you do not know how to use them.

Be sure to verify that the case you want to cite, or that has been cited by your opponent, has not been overruled by a higher court, or disapproved, or that other Courts of Appeal disagree with the reasoning. For that you will need to either use Westlaw® or Lexis® to make sure that your case is still good law. Failure to do so can be a big mistake! You do not want to cite a case that is no longer good law. Particularly if you are representing yourself. That will really make you look bad in Court. If instead every case you cite says exactly what you wrote in your brief or motion, and the case is still good law then you will look good in Court.

Attorneys or parties in California who wish to view collections of sample documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author can click below.

http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro/collections

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. Visit the author's website at: http://www.legaldocspro.com

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

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.

These 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.