Collateral attack on a judgment in California

A collateral attack on a judgment in California is the topic of this blog post.

A collateral attack on a judgment in California requires the filing of a separate lawsuit which is also known as an independent action in equity.  A collateral attack on a judgment is fundamentally different from a standard motion to vacate a judgment in that it involves the filing of another lawsuit to vacate the judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The complaint could also include other causes of action such as vacating the judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake if appropriate.

Advantages of a collateral attack on a judgment in California.

A collateral attack on a judgment in California has some very important advantages which include,

(1) there is NO time limit for a collateral attack on a judgment,

(2) because filing an independent action in equity involves a separate lawsuit, the party seeking to vacate the judgment is allowed the full range of discovery methods authorized in California litigation including interrogatories, requests for admission, requests for production of documents, depositions, and most importantly, the use of oral testimony as witnesses can be served with a subpoena to appear at the trial, and

(3) the fact that a California Court of Appeal ruled in a recently published decision that laches cannot be invoked as a defense in cases where there has been a complete failure of service of process upon a defendant.

And there is another important advantage in that even if a motion to vacate is made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is denied that does not always preclude an independent action in equity to set aside the judgment, in other words the denial of the previous motion is not entitled to collateral estoppel effect although collateral estoppel may apply if the defendant had an opportunity to present oral testimony at the section 473 motion hearing and the issues were fully litigated.  See Groves v. Peterson (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 659, 668.

The California Supreme Court has stated that the reasoning behind the general rule that the denial of the previous motion is not entitled to collateral estoppel effect, which has been well settled in California for over 100 years, is the fact that, in the standard motion procedure, the moving party is limited to presenting ex parte affidavits of voluntary witnesses in most cases unless the trial court exercises discretion and permits a greater latitude.  In using the motion procedure the party does not have the right to produce oral testimony or to compel witnesses to attend for deposition or cross-examination.  The motion procedure, while simpler and more convenient, does not involve all the aspects of full litigation.  Because the remedies of a motion in the underlying case and an independent action in equity are cumulative, parties should be entitled to resort first to the convenient and expeditious remedy without worrying about the issue of collateral estoppel if the motion is denied.  Thus even if a section 473 motion has been denied, parties may still pursue an independent action that affords them all the advantages of a regular trial of the issue.

Technically speaking there is no time limit to filing an independent action in equity to vacate a judgment.  However if you have recently become aware that a judgment has been entered against you should contact an experienced civil litigation attorney that can evaluate your situation and determine if a collateral attack on the judgment is appropriate.

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

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).

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)(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.

 

Consumers Legal Remedies Act in California

The Consumers Legal Remedies Act in California is the topic of this blog post.

The Consumers Legal Remedies Act is act is also known as the CLRA and is a very potent weapon that may be used by a California consumer against a business or service provider who is using unfair or deceptive trade practices.  The CLRA provides remedies for unfair or deceptive trade practices and is very detailed.

Statutes governing Consumers Legal Remedies Act in California.

The statutes governing the Consumers Legal Remedies Act in California are found in Civil Code sections 1750 through 1784.  The damages available include actual damages, an injunctive order enjoining the acts, methods or practices, restitution, punitive damages and reasonable court costs and attorney’s fees.  A plaintiff who is a senior citizen over the age of 65 years or disabled as defined by subdivisions (f) and (g) of Civil Code section 1761 can also be awarded additional damages of up to $5,000.00 in certain cases.

Civil Code § 1780 states in pertinent part that,

“(a) Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful by Section 1770 may bring an action against that person to recover or obtain any of the following:

(1) Actual damages, but in no case shall the total award of damages in a class action be less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

(2) An order enjoining the methods, acts, or practices.

(3) Restitution of property.

(4) Punitive damages.

(5) Any other relief that the court deems proper.

(e) The court shall award court costs and attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this section. Reasonable attorney’s fees may be awarded to a prevailing defendant upon a finding by the court that the plaintiff’s prosecution of the action was not in good faith.”

There are more than 20 separate categories of illegal practices listed in Civil Code § 1770.  These include passing off goods or services as those of another, using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services, and representing as original or new goods that have deteriorated unreasonably or are altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand.

Requirements before filing a lawsuit under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act in California.

The CLRA does have some very specific requirements that must be followed.  Before a lawsuit can be filed requesting damages under the CLRA the plaintiff must first give the defendant notice of the violation and allow them a specific period of time to make things right.

At least 30 days before filing a lawsuit under the CLRA, the plaintiff must give the potential defendant notice of the alleged violation and demand that he or she “correct, repair, replace or otherwise rectify” the prohibited practices.  The notice must be in writing and sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the place where the transaction occurred, or to the potential defendant’s principal place of business within California pursuant to Civil Code section 1782(a)(2).

The complaint must contain allegations that proper notice was given.  If a plaintiff files a complaint requesting damages without first sending the required notice, the claim can be dismissed.  This defect cannot be cured by amendment.  Failure to provide notice after litigation has started will not be effective, notice must be given in order to state a claim, failure to give notice before filing any complaint will result in a Court dismissing the case with prejudice.

Messages sent by email, fax, or standard mail are not sufficient, and the notice must also be sent to the place where the transaction occurred, or to the potential defendant’s principal place of business within California pursuant to pursuant to Civil Code § 1782 (a)(2).

The notice is intended to give the manufacturer or vendor sufficient notice of alleged defects to permit appropriate corrections or replacements, and to facilitate settlements of consumer actions wherever possible before a complaint is filed.

It should be noted that a plaintiff that is requesting only injunctive relief under the CLRA does not have to serve the required notice, and a plaintiff can file a complaint that requests only injunctive relief and later amend their complaint and request damages if they include allegations that they served the required notice on the defendant.

A defendant may establish good faith by introducing evidence of their attempts to comply with a consumer’s demand pursuant to Civil Code section 1782(3).

A defendant may avoid liability under the CLRA if they can prove that any alleged violation was not intentional; it resulted from a bona fide error; and they made an appropriate correction, repair, or replacement, or provided another remedy pursuant to Civil Code section 1784.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether sending a demand letter requesting that a business or company correct their violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act 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 expunge a Lis Pendens in California

A motion to expunge a Lis Pendens in California is the topic of this blog post

The technical name for a Lis Pendens is a notice of pendency of action. The term Lis Pendens is more commonly used and is Latin for pending lawsuit.

The statutes governing a Lis Pendens in California are found in Code of Civil Procedure sections 405.1 through 405.39.

Code of Civil Procedure § 405.20 authorizes the recording of a Lis Pendens and Code of Civil Procedure § 405.4 states that, “Real property claim” means the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect (a) title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property or (b) the use of an easement identified in the pleading, other than an easement obtained pursuant to statute by any regulated public utility.”

Law authorizing a motion to expunge a Lis Pendens in California.

A motion to expunge a Lis Pendens in California is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30 which states that,

“At any time after notice of pendency of action has been recorded, any party, or any nonparty with an interest in the real property affected thereby, may apply to the court in which the action is pending to expunge the notice. However, a person who is not a party to the action shall obtain leave to intervene from the court at or before the time the party brings the motion to expunge the notice. Evidence or declarations may be filed with the motion to expunge the notice. The court may permit evidence to be received in the form of oral testimony, and may make any orders it deems just to provide for discovery by any party affected by a motion to expunge the notice. The claimant shall have the burden of proof under Sections 405.31 and 405.32.”

Burden of proof on motion to expunge a Lis Pendens in California.

Once the motion to expunge has been filed the burden is on the plaintiff to show that at least one of the causes of action of their complaint states a real property claim.  The Court must order the notice expunged if the complaint does not state a real property claim.

Code of Civil Procedure § 405.31 states that,

“In proceedings under this chapter, the court shall order the notice expunged if the court finds that the pleading on which the notice is based does not contain a real property claim. The court shall not order an undertaking to be given as a condition of expunging the notice where the court finds the pleading does not contain a real property claim.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 405.32 states that,

“In proceedings under this chapter, the court shall order that the notice be expunged if the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim. The court shall not order an undertaking to be given as a condition of expunging the notice if the court finds the claimant has not established the probable validity of the real property claim.”

Grounds for filing a motion to expunge a Lis Pendens in California.

The most common grounds for expunging a Lis Pendens in California are that the complaint does not state a real property claim as required by California law.

Another ground for expunging a Lis Pendens in California is on the grounds that it is void and invalid as the Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §  405.22 which states that, “ Except in actions subject to Section 405.6, the claimant shall, prior to recordation of the notice, cause a copy of the notice to be mailed, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to all known addresses of the parties to whom the real property claim is adverse and to all owners of record of the real property affected by the real property claim as shown by the latest county assessment roll. If there is no known address for service on an adverse party or owner, then as to that party or owner a declaration under penalty of perjury to that effect may be recorded instead of the proof of service required above, and the service on that party or owner shall not be required. Immediately following recordation, a copy of the notice shall also be filed with the court in which the action is pending. Service shall also be made immediately and in the same manner upon each adverse party later joined in the action.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 405.23 states that, “Any notice of pendency of action shall be void and invalid as to any adverse party or owner of record unless the requirements of Section 405.22 are met for that party or owner and a proof of service in the form and content specified in Section 1013a has been recorded with the notice of pendency of action.”

The recording of a Lis Pendens against a real property clouds the title and may prevent any transfer of the real property.  Therefore, the Lis Pendens procedure is abused very frequently.

The California Supreme Court has stated that, Courts have long recognized that “[b]ecause the recording of a lis pendens place[s] a cloud upon the title of real property until the pending action [is] ultimately resolved . . . , the lis pendens procedure [is] susceptible to serious abuse, providing unscrupulous plaintiffs with a powerful lever to force the settlement of groundless or malicious suits.”  See Malcolm v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 518, 523, fn. 2, 524 (emphasis in original).

Several California Courts of Appeal have stated in published decisions that the history of the legislation indicates a legislative intent to restrict rather than broaden the application of the remedy.

The California Courts of Appeal have stated in several published decisions that causes of action with equitable liens do not state a real property claim if those causes of action act only as an alternative or collateral means to collect money damages as the real purpose of the statutes is to provide notice of pending litigation and not to provide plaintiffs with more leverage for use in negotiating a settlement.

Causes of action for money only do not state a real property claim in California.

Attorney’s fees and costs available on a motion to expunge a Lis Pendens in California.

The prevailing party on the motion to expunge is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 405.38 which states that,

“The court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of making or opposing the motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs unjust.”

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether filing a motion to expunge a Lis Pendens 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.

Request for an extension of time to respond to a complaint in California

A request for an extension of time to respond to a complaint in California is the topic of this blog post.

A request for an extension of time to respond in California is typically made by filing an ex parte application as the circumstances that necessitate the request usually arise when there is not sufficient time for the request to be heard by filing a noticed motion.

Law authorizing a request for an extension of time to respond to a complaint in California.

A request for an extension of time to respond in California is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1054(a) which allows a judge to grant an extension of tine not exceeding 30 days to respond to a complaint upon a showing of good cause.  An extension of time may also be granted to respond to a cross-complaint as well.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1054(a) states that, “When an act to be done, as provided in this code, relates to the pleadings in the action, or the preparation of bills of exceptions, or of amendments thereto, or to the service of notices other than of appeal and of intention to move for a new trial, the time allowed therefor, unless otherwise expressly provided, may be extended, upon good cause shown, by the judge of the court in which the action is pending, or by the judge who presided at the trial of the action; but the extension so allowed shall not exceed 30 days, without the consent of the adverse party.”

Before filing a request for an extension of time to respond in California most judges want the defendant to first contact the plaintiff or opposing party or their attorney and request that they stipulate to an extension of time to respond to the complaint. If the request is denied that fact should be mentioned in the supporting declaration to show to the judge that you attempted to obtain a stipulation but were unsuccessful.

Common grounds for a request for an extension of time to respond to a complaint in California.

The judge has discretion as to whether or not to grant an extension of time to respond in California.  Most judges would consider that a defendant has established good cause if they can show that they need an extension of time to,

Obtain the funds to retain an attorney;

They have contacted an attorney that needs more time to review the case;

A family emergency requires the defendant to travel out of town, or

A medical emergency involving the defendant such as hospitalization prevents them from filing a timely response to the complaint.

Any declarations supporting a request for an extension of time to respond should include sufficient facts and evidence detailing the circumstances that have necessitated the request for an extension of time to respond.

The request for an extension of time should also state whether or not any previous extensions of time to respond by court order or stipulation have been granted.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether filing a request for an extension of time to respond 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.