Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court

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

A Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court is filed on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.

This motion is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(3) (“Rule 60”).

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.”

Deadline to file a Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court.

It should be noted that 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.”

Requirements for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court.

A motion to vacate a judgment on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party is the appropriate motion if you can meet the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that,

The fraud or other misconduct resulted in a verdict against you’

The conduct prevented you from fully and fairly presenting their claim or defense, and

The fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct of the adverse party was not discoverable by due diligence before or during the trial.

“Rule 60(b)(3) “is aimed at judgments which were unfairly obtained, not at those which are factually incorrect.” See De Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing In re M/V Peacock, 809 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1987).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled that obtaining an arbitration award through perjury is fraud. See Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 1982) (obtaining an award through perjury is fraud), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 990, 103 S.Ct. 346, 74 L.Ed.2d 386 (1982).

If you have recently become aware of fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by an adverse party that resulted in a verdict against you and prevented you from fairly presenting your case you should contact an experienced civil litigation attorney as soon as possible.

An experienced civil litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether filing a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) is appropriate.

Nathan Mubasher earned a post-doctorate LL.M. in International Financial Transactions with emphasis on Money Laundering and Compliance at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a J.D. at American College of Law, and his B.A. at University of California, Riverside. He is a member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California. He is also an active member of the American Health Lawyers Association and the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys. He has performed over 1,000 mediations and has Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training from the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).

Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a free consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

 

Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court

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

A Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court is filed using the  grounds of newly discovered evidence. Rule 60(b)(2) refers to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 60(b)(2) 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.”

A district court may vacate a prior judgment where the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, an intervening change of controlling law, manifest injustice, or where the prior order was clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6); United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) see also Stewart v. Dupnik, 243 F.3d 549, 549 (9th Cir. 2000).

A Rule 60(B)(2) motion to vacate a judgment is appropriate if you can meet the burden required of the moving party as detailed in this blog post.

Requirements for a Rule 60(B)(2) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court.

The party filing a Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court must meet their burden of showing that,

The newly discovered evidence was discovered after the trial;

They exercised diligence to discover the evidence;

The evidence is not just cumulative or impeaching evidence;

The evidence is material;

The evidence would most likely produce a different result if the judgment were set aside, and

The evidence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which states that, “A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.”

And several Circuit Courts of Appeal have also stated in published decisions that a Rule 60(b)(2) motion for relief from judgment is subject to the same standard as a motion under Rule 59 for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence.

If you become aware of new evidence that was material to your claim or defense and could not have been discovered earlier you need to contact an experienced civil litigation attorney as soon as possible to increase the probability that your motion will be 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.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether filing a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) is appropriate.

Nathan Mubasher earned a post-doctorate LL.M. in International Financial Transactions with emphasis on Money Laundering and Compliance at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a J.D. at American College of Law, and his B.A. at University of California, Riverside. He is a member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California. He is also an active member of the American Health Lawyers Association and the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys. He has performed over 1,000 mediations and has Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training from the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).

Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a free consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

Answer to a complaint in United States District Court

An answer to a complaint in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post.

An answer to a complaint in United States District Court must be filed within the time period specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless you have obtained a stipulation from the opposing party or their attorney, or an order of the court granting you an extension of time to answer.

An answer to a complaint in United States District Court can also include a counterclaim against the plaintiff, or a crossclaim against other parties that involves the same set of facts alleged in the complaint.

Deadline to file an answer to a complaint in United States District Court.

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, although there are exceptions which are listed in Rule 12.

Rule 12 states in pertinent part that,

“(a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.

(1) In General. Unless another time is specified by this rule or a federal statute, the time for serving a responsive pleading is as follows:

(A) A defendant must serve an answer:

(i) within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint; or

(ii) if it has timely waived service under Rule 4(d), within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent, or within 90 days after it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States.

(B) A party must serve an answer to a counterclaim or crossclaim within 21 days after being served with the pleading that states the counterclaim or crossclaim.

(C) A party must serve a reply to an answer within 21 days after being served with an order to reply, unless the order specifies a different time.”

Requirements for an answer to a complaint in United States District Court.

An answer to a complaint in United States District Court should specifically deny each statement in the complaint that is untrue and admit each statement that is true.

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part that,

“(b) Defenses; Admissions and Denials.

(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must:

(A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it; and

(B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.

(2) Denials—Responding to the Substance. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.

(3) General and Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so by a general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.

(4) Denying Part of an Allegation. A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest.

(5) Lacking Knowledge or Information. A party that lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a denial.

(6) Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.

(c) Affirmative Defenses.

(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense, including:

  • accord and satisfaction;
  • arbitration and award;
  • assumption of risk;
  • contributory negligence;
  • duress;
  • estoppel;
  • failure of consideration;
  • fraud;
  • illegality;
  • injury by fellow servant;
  • laches;
  • license;
  • payment;
  • release;
  • res judicata;
  • statute of frauds;
  • statute of limitations; and
  • waiver

It is very important that an answer to a complaint in United States District Court that you specifically deny each allegation or part of an allegation of the complaint that is untrue as any allegations of the complaint that are not specifically denied in the answer will be deemed admitted.

If you do not have sufficient information or belief as to whether to admit or deny an allegation in the complaint you can deny the allegation based on a lack of information or belief.

An answer to a complaint in United States District Court should also include any affirmative defenses that you may have as well as admitting or denying all of the allegations in the complaint.  An affirmative defense is basically a defense where, even assuming that all of plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint were true, the law does not permit the plaintiff to win the case.

An answer to a complaint in United States District Court should include all relevant affirmative defenses 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 another response such as a motion to dismiss.  If an affirmative defense is not included in an answer the defendant may not be allowed to raise it later in the case unless they the court grants them leave of court to amend their answer.

An answer to a complaint in United States District Court must also state enough facts to support each affirmative defense.  If the answer fails to do so the plaintiff may file a motion to strike the defense on the grounds of an insufficient defense, or an immaterial allegation pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine which affirmative defenses to include in your answer to the complaint as well as determine whether a counterclaim or crossclaim is appropriate.

Nathan Mubasher earned a post-doctorate LL.M. in International Financial Transactions with emphasis on Money Laundering and Compliance at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a J.D. at American College of Law, and his B.A. at University of California, Riverside. He is a member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California. He is also an active member of the American Health Lawyers Association and the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys. He has performed over 1,000 mediations and has Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training from the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).

Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a free consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

 

 

Motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) in United States District Court

A motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post.

A motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) in United States District Court is filed on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.

Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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.”

Deadline to file Rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate a judgment.

It should be noted that Rule 60 does state that the motion must be made within a reasonable time no more than one year after entry of the judgment or order, or date of the proceeding.   If you have recently become aware that a default judgment or any other judgment has been entered against you in Federal Court you need to act quickly to increase the probability that your motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has stated that

the law is settled 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.

You also need to emphasize that you have affirmative defenses to the complaint as you must show that you have a meritorious defense in order to prevail on the motion.

Relevant factors considered by the court on a Rule 60(b)(1) motion.

In ruling on a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) the court will look at three factors in deciding whether to grant relief from the default which are:

Whether the plaintiff will suffer prejudice if the judgment is vacated,

Whether the defendant has a meritorious defense

Whether the defendant engaged in any culpable conduct that led to the default or judgment being entered against them.

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.” See 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.”

However a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) can be denied if it is shown that the moving defendant was culpable, and that conduct led to the default.

And 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.” See Pioneer Inv. Svcs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).

A motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) does have a longer deadline than a motion to vacate a judgment in California under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).  However it has one significant difference in that the moving party is required to show a meritorious defense.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether filing a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) is appropriate.

Nathan Mubasher earned a post-doctorate LL.M. in International Financial Transactions with emphasis on Money Laundering and Compliance at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a J.D. at American College of Law, and his B.A. at University of California, Riverside. He is a member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California. He is also an active member of the American Health Lawyers Association and the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys. He has performed over 1,000 mediations and has Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training from the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).

Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a free consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

Request for leave of court to file a compulsory cross-complaint in California

A request for leave of court to file a compulsory cross-complaint in California is the topic of this blog post.

A request for leave of court to file a compulsory cross-complaint in the State of California is a very useful tool for any party that has discovered facts that support what are known as affirmative claims for relief which evolve from “a series of acts or occurrences logically interrelated” as these claims are for related causes of action that are subject to forfeiture if they are not pleaded in the action.  This typically happens during the discovery phase of litigation.

Statutory authorization for leave of court to file a compulsory cross-complaint in California.

A request for leave of court to file a compulsory cross-complaint in the State of California is authorized by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50.

Code of Civil Procedure § 426.50 states that, “A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action.  The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith.  This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action”.

It should be noted that Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 also allows any party to request leave of court to amend their cross-complaint to add additional causes of action at any time during the course of the action.

A California Court of Appeal has stated in a published case that a motion for leave of court to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of an action must be granted unless the opposing party can show bad faith on the part of the moving party.

In the case of Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App 3d 94, 98-99 a California Court of Appeal stated that, “The legislative mandate is clear.  A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court.  A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result.  Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith”

The Court also ruled in Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank, at 100, that “Our review of the entire record fails to reveal, directly or inferentially, any substantial evidence of bad faith by the appellants.  Looking at the entire period between the filing of the complaint and the denial of the section 426.50 motion, a time frame of less than six months, we find nothing in appellants’ words or conduct remotely suggesting dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, sinister motive, furtive design or ill will”.

In Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank the Court of Appeal ruled that a time period of less than six months between the filing of a complaint and a motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint did not constitute bad faith

While other cases have ruled that a lengthy delay of over six months may constitute bad faith, the decision in Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank has not been disapproved or otherwise disagreed with in any other published case in the State of California as of the date of this blog post.

Any party that wants to request leave of court to file a compulsory cross-complaint should file their motion within six months or less to avoid the possibility of their motion being denied.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether the unique circumstances of your case would support a request for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint.  Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a free consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

 

Application for a temporary restraining order in California

An application for a temporary restraining order in California is the topic of this blog post.

This blog post will discuss an application for a temporary restraining order as well as a preliminary injunction in California.

The main focus of this blog post will relate to a real property dispute although the same general principles discussed herein would apply in other civil litigation in California as well.

Requesting a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction can be made using a regular noticed motion but is usually done using the ex parte application procedure.  The party requesting a preliminary injunction and TRO by ex-parte application must meet their burden of proof by showing competent evidence the great and irreparable harm that will result if a TRO is not issued and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not also issue on an ex-parte basis.

Statutory authorization for an application for a temporary restraining order in California.

The statutes that authorize temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in California are found in Code of Civil Procedure section 527.  California Rule of Court 3.1150 also governs preliminary injunctions and California Rules of Court 3.1200 through 3.1207 govern ex-parte notices.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction in a real property dispute is to preserve the status quo pending final resolution of the issues involved at the trial.   In ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction the trial court will determine the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits and the trial, and the harm the plaintiff will suffer if the requested relief is not granted as compared with the harm the plaintiff would suffer if the preliminary injunction is issued.

In most situations if the Court grants the request they will issue a TRO and also issue an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.   The issue of whether to grant the preliminary injunction will be made at a later hearing to be scheduled by the Court.

In most situations requests for injunctive relief in California are routinely granted when an interest in real property is involved.  This is due to the fact that real property is deemed unique by California law and injury or loss cannot be compensated in damages.  See Civil Code § 3387 which states that, “It is to be presumed that the breach of an agreement to transfer real property cannot be adequately relieved by pecuniary compensation.  In the case of a single-family dwelling which the party seeking performance intends to occupy, this presumption is conclusive. In all other cases, this presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof”; see also Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery, (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1084.

Temporary restraining orders in California are generally issued using an ex parte application on very short notice.  If a temporary restraining order is granted without notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §527(c), the matter must be made returnable on an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted on the earliest day that the business of the court will allow, but no later than 15 days or, if good cause appears to the court, 22 days from the date the temporary restraining order is issued.   See Code of Civil Procedure § 527(d)(1).

If you are requesting a preliminary injunction in California and you demonstrate a reasonable probability that you will succeed on the merits of your claim the Court must issue a preliminary injunction.

However if you want to file an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in California you need to act quickly in filing your application and include enough competent evidence in your supporting declarations to support your application.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine if the circumstances of your case entitle you to file an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in California.  Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a free consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

 

Demand for a bill of particulars in California

A demand for a bill of particulars in California is the topic of this blog post.

The law in California states that it is not necessary for a plaintiff who sues on an account to include the items of any account in their complaint.  California law also states that if the defendant serves a written demand on the plaintiff they are required to furnish a copy of the account on which the complaint is based or be precluded from giving evidence thereof.

The demand for a bill of particulars procedure dates back to the days of early common law when plaintiffs who sued on a common count gave no specifics in their pleading as to the nature of the claim such as whether it was contract, quasi-contract, etc.  For this reason, courts allowed a demand for bill of particulars to enable defendant to discover what was being claimed and to prepare for trial.

This procedure, known as a bill of particulars forces the plaintiff to itemize the total sum upon which the complaint is based.

The demand for a bill of particulars must be in writing, and the bill of particulars must be delivered to the requesting party within 10 (ten) days if personally served, fifteen (15) days if served by mail.  And if the original complaint or cross-complaint was verified the bill of particulars must also be verified.

Law authorizing a demand for a bill of particulars in California.

Code of Civil Procedure § 454 states that,

“It is not necessary for a party to set forth in a pleading the items of an account therein alleged, but he must deliver to the adverse party, within ten days after a demand thereof in writing, a copy of the account, or be precluded from giving evidence thereof.  The court or judge thereof may order a further account when the one delivered is too general, or is defective in any particular.

If the pleading is verified the account must be verified by the affidavit of the party to the effect that he believes it to be true; or if the facts are within the personal knowledge of the agent or attorney for the party, or the party is not within the county where the attorney has his office or from some cause unable to make the affidavit, by the affidavit of the agent or attorney.”

Advantages of a demand for a bill of particulars in California.

A demand for a bill of particulars enables any defendant who has been sued on an account such as common counts or certain actions in contract or quasi-contract to force plaintiff to itemize the account on which the complaint is based.  A demand for a bill of particulars is very useful in collection cases as it forces the plaintiff to itemize each and every charge on which the alleged balance is based.

Demanding a bill of particulars in California is not used as often nowadays.  However it remains a powerful tool for the defendant in an action on an account.  See Kaneko Ford Design v. Citipark, Inc., (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 1220, 1225, (reciting fact that the demand was made and complied with.)

If used in the appropriate situations, a demand for a bill of particulars can be an excellent tool for forcing the plaintiff to provide all of the documentation supporting their claim.

A demand for a bill of particulars in California is very powerful in situations where the plaintiff is an assignee of a finance or credit card company and may not have all of the documentation needed to serve a timely response.

Considering the fact that the current economy has led to an explosion resulting in the repeated sale and transfer of delinquent accounts, failing to utilize the demand for the bill of particulars is a critical error.

If, after furnishing the itemization, plaintiff finds that it was incomplete or incorrect, plaintiff must file a noticed motion with the court to amend the bill of particulars just as he or she would to amend a pleading.  Many assignees of finance or credit card companies will respond by simply providing the last statement, a response which is clearly defective, and in those situations a defendant may file a noticed motion for a further bill of particulars.

If a plaintiff fails to respond to the demand for a bill of particulars, the court may bar plaintiff from introducing evidence at trial in support of the account claimed if the defendant makes a motion.  In fact some Judges may allow this request to be made by a motion in limine at trial.

The bill of particulars furnished by the plaintiff is treated as an amplification of the pleadings and it is for this reason that it has the effect of a pleading.  At the trial, plaintiff is limited to the items and amounts specified in his or her bill of particulars.  No additional items can be shown.  See Baroni v. Musick (1934) 3 Cal App. 2d 419, 421.

Apart from actions on a book account, demands for a bill of particulars arise most often in the context of common counts which include actions for:  (1) money had and received;  (2) money lent or paid;  (3) services and material; (4) goods sold and delivered; and (5) quantum meruit.

However even though Code of Civil Procedure § 454 authorizes a demand for a bill of particulars in an action “on an account,” it is not available in an action on an account stated. Distefano v. Hall, (1963) 218 Cal. App. 2d 657, 677.

An account stated is a new agreement by the parties which supersedes the original contract and account.  Jones v. Wilton, (1938) 10 Cal. 2d 493, 498 .

Any action on it is therefore based on only the final balance agreed on by the parties and not on the original individual items of account.  Hallford v. Baird, (1938) 27 Cal. App. 2d 384, 398. Therefore, itemization of the account is not possible.

Although interrogatories and depositions can now be used for the same purpose, the bill of particulars remains an alternative procedure and it has certain advantages, as well in that,

(1) it is far easier and less costly to send out a simple demand for bill of particulars than it is to draft interrogatories or to prepare for and take depositions;

(2) responses to interrogatories or deposition questions can be used as evidence against the answering party at trial; but they are not conclusive (contradictory evidence is also admissible).  On the other hand, a bill of particulars is conclusive as to the items and amounts claimed; i.e., no other evidence is admissible at trial, unless the court grants leave to amend the bill of particulars, and,

(3) since it is not an interrogatory, the demand does not count against the numerical limits on specially prepared interrogatories under the Discovery Act.  Thus it is particularly useful in limited civil litigation where parties are strictly limited to 35 discovery requests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 94.

The big disadvantage is that a bill of particulars is only available in actions on an account.  For that reason it is not an alternative to depositions and interrogatories in certain cases.

Experienced civil litigation attorney in Corona,  California.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine if serving a demand for a bill of particulars is appropriate given the unique circumstances of your case.  Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a free consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.