Showing posts with label Federal litigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal litigation. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Over 300 sample legal documents for sale
Sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation available for sale. Over 300 sample documents are available. All documents are in Microsoft Word format and include answers, complaints, demurrers, motions to dismiss, motions to quash, motions to strike, motions to compel, interrogatories, requests for admission and more! The author of these sample documents is Stan Burman, an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Motion for reconsideration in United States District Court
A motion for reconsideration in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post.
This motion is technically known as a motion to alter or amend judgment and is authorized by the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).This motion must be filed within 28 calendar days after the judgment is entered. However if used in appropriate situations filing a motion to alter or amend a judgment can be an effective strategy. This motion has another advantage in that a timely-filed motion extends the time to file a notice of appeal under the provisions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) until the entry of the order disposing of the motion.
District courts have the power to “alter or amend” a judgment by motion
under FRCP 59(e). The deadline for
filing a Rule 59(e) motion is the same as a motion for new trial as FRCP 59(e)
states that, “(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or
amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.”
Although
FRCP 59(e) does not state any specific grounds for relief the Courts have ruled
that a motion is proper where there is newly discovered evidence, the judgment
is based on a clear error committed by the Court or is manifestly unjust, or an
intervening change in controlling law since the date of entry of judgment.
Depending on the circumstances of any particular case a party may
actually have more than 28 calendar days to file a Rule 59(e) motion as in
order to start the clock running on the 28 day deadline requires a final
judgment requiring a separate document under Rule 58(a) which is considered
entered when the judgment is both entered in the civil docket under Rule 79(a)
and either (a) it is set forth on a separate document or (b) 150 days have run
from entry of the judgment in the civil docket, whichever occurs first. See
Rule 58(c)(2).
The moving party must meet their burden
of showing sufficient facts and evidence to support their grounds and must show
that a miscarriage of justice will result if the judgment is not altered or
amended.
For example a party requesting to
alter or amend a judgment on the grounds of newly discovered evidence must show
that the newly discovered
evidence was not available at the time of the judgment being challenged or if
the evidence was available at the time of the judgment being challenged that the party or counsel made
a diligent effort to discover the evidence but was unsuccessful.
Any party requesting to alter or amend
a judgment on the grounds of a
clear error committed by the Court or that the judgment is manifestly unjust
must show extreme prejudice as a result of the alleged error or otherwise show
that the judgment is somehow manifestly unjust.
Lastly any party requesting to alter
or amend the judgment on the grounds of an intervening change in controlling
law must specifically state the particular controlling law that has been
changed since the date of entry of the judgment and also the effect that change
has had on the validity of the judgment.
Attorneys
or parties that would like to view a portion of a 13 page sample motion to
alter or amend a judgment in United States District Court containing brief
instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law
and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail sold
by the author can see below.
View over 300 sample legal documents for sale
You can view sample legal document packages by clicking the link shown below.
View sample document packages
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
*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.
New trial motion in United States District Court
A new trial motion in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(a) authorizes the filing of a motion for a new trial on some or all of the issues for civil cases in United States District Court.
A new trial motion can be only be filed using certain
grounds and must be filed within 28 calendar days after the judgment is
entered. However in situations where the
stakes are high enough filing a motion for new trial can be very useful. Another
advantage is that a timely-filed new trial motion extends the time to file a
notice of appeal under the provisions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
4(a) until the entry of the order disposing of the motion for new trial.
The main grounds for a motion for new trial under Rule 59(a)
after a jury trial are (1) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence;
(2) newly discovered evidence: (3) prejudicial conduct by the court or opposing
counsel, and (4) juror misconduct although other grounds might apply in certain
situations.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) states that,
“(a) In General.
(1) Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on
all or some of the issues—and to any party—as follows:
(A) after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has
heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court; or
(B) after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has
heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.
(2) Further Action After a Nonjury Trial. After a nonjury trial, the
court may, on motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been
entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of
law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment.”
Rule 59(b) states that,
”(b) Time to File a Motion for a New Trial. A motion for a new trial must
be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.”
However because each individual case is unique a party may actually have
more than 28 calendar days to file the motion for new trial as in order to
start the clock running on the 28 day deadline requires a final judgment
requiring a separate document under Rule 58(a) which is considered entered when
the judgment is both entered in the civil docket under Rule 79(a) and either
(a) it is set forth on a separate document or (b) 150 days have run from entry
of the judgment in the civil docket, whichever occurs first. See Rule 58(c)(2).
The moving party must meet their burden
of showing sufficient facts and evidence to support their grounds and must show
that a miscarriage of justice will result if the judgment is not vacated and a
new trial granted.
For example a party requesting a new
trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence has
the burden of convincing the judge that the verdict is against the clear weight
of the evidence or is based on evidence which is false or will result in a
miscarriage of justice.
Parties requesting a new trial on the
grounds of newly discovered evidence must show that the evidence in question
was discovered after the date of the trial; that the moving party exercised due
diligence to discover the evidence before the end of the trial; the evidence is
material and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and the new evidence would
likely have changed the outcome of the case.
A party requesting a new trial on the
grounds of prejudicial conduct by the judge or opposing counsel must show that
they were so severely prejudiced that they were prevented from having a fair
trial. For example it is improper for a
judgment to comment on any ultimate factual issues such as the issue of which
party was negligent, which party breached the contract, etc. And a new trial
can be ordered in cases where the opposing counsel committed misconduct at the
trial that made it reasonably certain that the verdict was influence by the
prejudicial statements. An opening or
closing statement incorrectly expands any potential grounds of liability or takes
away any benefit the aggrieved party may have won a prior motion such as a
motion for partial summary judgment, violating an in limine order or the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
The party requesting a new trial on
the grounds of juror misconduct must show that the juror misconduct resulted in
them suffering prejudice which could include extraneous information obtained by
a juror from friends or relatives or a juror introducing facts or evidence
acquired outside of the courtroom during jury deliberations.
Attorneys
or parties that would like to view a portion of a 16 page sample motion for new
trial in United States District Court containing brief instructions, a
memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory
authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail can see below.
View over 300 sample legal documents for sale
You can view sample legal document packages by clicking the link shown below.
View sample document packages
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
*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.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Settlement offer under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 in United States District Court
A settlement offer under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 in United
States District Court is the topic of this blog post. Rule 408 generally forbids evidence of any settlement
offers or any conducts or statements made during settlement negotiations.
Rule 408 was first introduced in 1974. It replaced the
original rules of evidence which represented a huge stumbling block to any
meaningful settlement negotiations as under the common law any statements made
during such settlement negotiations were admissible and therefore fair game for
use at trial or in summary judgment motions. Not surprisingly this threat had a very
chilling effect that prevented most if not all litigants from engaging in any
discussions regarding a possible settlement. Rule 408 changed the common law rule as it forbids
the admission into evidence of statements made during settlement negotiations
“when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of or amount of a claim that
was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior
inconsistent statement or contradiction.”
Rule 408 was adopted to facilitate the resolution of
disputes without the expense and uncertainty of protracted litigation. Many State
courts around the nation have adopted their own version of Rule 408, either
through formal rules or through case law. For the State of California has
adopted Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1154 which serve a similar purpose.
Rule 408 states that,
“(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not
admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity
or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement
or a contradiction:
(1) furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting,
promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in
compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise
negotiations about the claim — except when offered in a criminal case and when
the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its
regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for
another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a
contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal
investigation or prosecution.”
Rule 408 does have some exceptions. For example any previous
settlement negotiations between a plaintiff and another party could be
introduced by a defendant to establish for statute of limitations purposes the
date that plaintiff understood the cause of his or her injuries.
Attorneys or parties who would like to view a sample
settlement offer letter under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 created by the
author and available for free download can use the link shown 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.
*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 Subscribe to FREE weekly newsletter for more information.
Follow the author on Twitter at: Twitter page for LegalDocsPro
You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: Sample legal document packages for sale
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)