Opposition to motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) in United States District Court

An opposition to a motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post. Any opposition to the motion should be served and filed at least seven (7) calendar days before the hearing unless a Local Rule or order of the Court states otherwise pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(c)(2).

Parties served with a motion to vacate under Rule 60(b)(1) (“Rule 60”) should review the motion and all supporting documents closely to determine if grounds exist for an opposition. Common grounds for opposition are:

The motion is untimely in that it is brought later than one year after the entry of judgment or it is not brought within a reasonable time as required by Rule 60 which part that,

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

The moving party unreasonably delayed in filing the motion.

Culpable conduct by the moving party resulted in the judgment.

No meritorious defenses to the judgment or lawsuit are presented.

The opposing party would be prejudiced if the judgment were set aside.

Numerous decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeal including but not limited to, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have stated that the moving party must show good cause for the default or judgment, diligence in seeking relief and a meritorious defense otherwise the Court has the discretion to deny the motion.

In a recent decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that Rule 60 does not provide relief for cases of ignorance, carelessness or inexcusable neglect. In another case the Ninth Circuit stated that even attorney negligence that would be considered malpractice does not usually warrant the granting of relief under Rule 60(b)(1), only conduct that is considered attorney misconduct.

Another Circuit Court of Appeal also stated that the ignorance or carelessness of an attorney does not warrant relief under Rule 60 and neither do deliberate litigation strategy and choices regarding evidence.

Attorneys or parties who would like to view a portion of a 10 page sample opposition to motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) 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.

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 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view other sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

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.

Settlement offer in United States District Court under Federal Rule of Evidence 408

A settlement offer in United States District Court under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 is the topic of this blog post. Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence 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 effectively prevented 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 former 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 promote settlement and 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 example 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 see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view other sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

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.

The right to a trial by jury in civil case in California

The right to a trial by jury in California civil cases is the topic of this blog post. The right to a trial by jury is authorized by Article I, section 16 of the California Constitution which states in pertinent part that, “Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all.” This blog post will discuss trial by jury in civil cases in California.

Code of Civil Procedure section 631(a) states that, “The right to a trial by jury as declared by Section 16 of Article I of the California Constitution shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. In civil cases, a jury may only be waived pursuant to subdivision (f).”

It should be stressed that the right to a trial by jury only applies in legal, not equitable, actions. See Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 836, 845-846. As a result all actions in equity are non-jury trials, and are subject to the procedures associated with a non-jury trial although the trial judge does retain the power to order that any issue be tried by a jury pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 592. Note that a judge sitting in equity must ultimately decide the equitable issues, treating any jury verdict on those issues as only advisory. See Posey v. Leavitt (1991) 229 Cal.App 3d 1236, 1244.

As stated above the right to a jury trial can only be waived pursuant to provisions contained in subdivision (f) which states that,

“A party waives trial by jury in any of the following ways:

(1) By failing to appear at the trial.

(2) By written consent filed with the clerk or judge.

(3) By oral consent, in open court, entered in the minutes.

(4) By failing to announce that a jury is required, at the time the cause is first set for trial, if it is set upon notice or stipulation, or within five days after notice of setting if it is set without notice or stipulation.

(5) By failing to timely pay the fee described in subdivision (b), unless another party on the same side of the case has paid that fee.

(6) By failing to deposit with the clerk or judge, at the beginning of the second and each succeeding day’s session, the sum provided in subdivision (e).”

In most cases a party to a civil action in California who wants a jury trial must deposit jury fees with the court at least 25 days before the initial date set for trial and at the beginning of the second and each succeeding day of trial. Code of Civil Procedure § 631(d), (e). This rule does not apply to unlawful detainer actions which require the deposit of jury fees at least five days before the date set for trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 631(c)(1).

If these fees are not paid the jury trial right has been waived and this results in a non-jury trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 631(f)(5), (6). Although the court has the discretion to allow a trial by jury even though there may have been a waiver pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 631(g). The author will discuss relief from a waiver of a jury trial in California in a later blog post.

Any party who wants to retain the right to a jury trial should be sure to make a timely demand for a jury trial and timely deposit the advance jury fees with the clerk of the court. Although some parties include the demand for a jury trial in their pleading the author has found that certain courts request that the demand for a jury trial be made in a separate document.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a free sample demand for jury trial available for download in Word or PDF format created by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view other sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

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.

Notice of Unlawful Detainer in California

A Notice of Unlawful Detainer in California is the subject of this blog post. This notice is issued by the court clerk pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1161.2. The notice is required to be mailed to each defendant named in the action, another copy addressed to all occupants must be mailed separately to the property address.

Many tenants in California who receive this notice are confused as to how they should respond. While nothing in this blog post should be considered legal advice the law clearly states that the notice served by the court clerk does NOT constitute service of the summons and complaint. The tenant has no duty to respond unless and until they are properly served with a copy of the summons and complaint.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1161.2(c)(4) states in pertinent part that, “The notice shall be issued between 24 and 48 hours of the filing of the complaint, excluding weekends and holidays. One copy of the notice shall be addressed to “all occupants” and mailed separately to the subject premises. The notice shall not constitute service of the summons and complaint.” (Emphasis added).

However any tenant receiving this notice needs to be aware that they will be served with the summons and complaint within days in most cases. Intentionally evading service is never a good idea as that does not look good in Court. However that being said the author knows of no particular law or published case in California that states that anyone is required to actively cooperate in allowing themselves to be served. A tenant who simply comes and goes as they normally do and can prove this is complying with the statutes. In plain English a tenant does not have to alter their schedule to wait around to be served. They just need to be aware that they almost surely will be served with the summons and complaint very quickly.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view more information on a collection of over 20 sample legal documents for use by California tenants including an answer, demurrer, motion to quash service and more sold by the author for only $59.99 can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view other sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

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

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

Motion for change of venue under Code of Civil Procedure section 397(c) in California

A motion for change of venue under Code of Civil Procedure section 397(c) in California is the topic of this blog post. A motion filed under section 397(c) is filed on the grounds that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change of venue.

Section 397(c) is a very powerful provision as it gives the court the inherent power to modify the choices of the parties as to where the action should be tried. Plaintiff may have the right to file wherever venue is considered proper under the rules but the court still has the discretion to order a change of venue if trying the case locally would be seriously inconvenient to the witnesses and defeat the ends of justice.

Any motion for change of venue filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 397(c) in California should not be filed until after an answer to the complaint has been filed so that the court can determine exactly what issues are raised by the complaint and the answer. Note that the motion should be filed within a reasonable period of time after the answer has been filed and that the term witnesses refers only to non-party witnesses unless a party is so extremely ill or feeble so that travel to a distant county would endanger his or her health. See Simonian v. Simonian (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 68, 69.

The California Supreme Court has stated that what constitutes a “reasonable” time for filing a motion for change of venue under Code of Civil Procedure § 397 rests largely in the trial court’s discretion. See Cooney v. Cooney (1944) 25 Cal.2d 202, 208.

Code of Civil Procedure § 397 states in pertinent part that “The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases:

(c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.”

A California Court of Appeal has stated that the convenience of witnesses can be shown by the fact that the residence of all of the witnesses is in the same county to which the transfer is requested. That same Court of Appeal also stated that the trial court in making a determination that the ends of justice will be promoted by a change of venue can rely not only on the direct facts set forth in the affidavits but can also rely on any reasonable and relevant inferences that arise therefrom.

The scope of a motion for change of venue under section 397 is broad as Section 397 applies to any action or proceeding within its terms . . . even actions under statutes (e.g., FEHA) giving plaintiff the broadest possible choice of venue. See Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Riddell) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 222, 225.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample 10 page motion for change of venue under CCP section 397(c) 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.

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 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

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.

Opposition to motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter another and different judgment in California

An opposition to a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter another and different judgment in California is the topic of this blog post. The opposition to the motion should be filed and served at least nine (9) court days before the hearing and should be served by personal delivery or overnight mail pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has ordered otherwise.

Parties served with a motion to vacate and enter a different judgment should carefully review the motion and supporting declarations to determine what grounds exist for an opposition. The first possible ground for opposition is that the motion is not timely filed as in most cases the motion must be filed within 15 days if all parties are served with a notice of entry of judgment, either by the clerk of the court, or any other party. For more information parties should review Code of Civil Procedure section 663a.

The other grounds for opposition would be that the moving party has not met their burden of showing sufficient facts or evidence to support either of the two grounds listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 663 which states that,

“A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment:

1.   Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected.

2.   A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.”

The party opposing the motion should include enough supporting facts and evidence to support the opposition such as the fact that a judgment entered after a court trial is consistent with the legal conclusion to be drawn from the facts as found by the court and that the motion may not challenge the factual bases for the decision of the court, and for a judgment entered after a jury trial that the judgment is consistent with the special verdict of the jury.

A California Court of Appeal ruled in a case from over 75 years ago that so long as the judgment rendered is the correct legal conclusion to be drawn from the facts found by the court, any motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter another and different judgment should be denied.

Another California Court of Appeal in a recent case ruled that a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter another and different judgment cannot be used to challenge the factual bases for the decision of the court.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 10 page sample opposition to a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter another and different judgment containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

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.

Ex-parte application for extension of time to respond to complaint in California

An ex-parte application for an extension of time to respond (plead) to a complaint in California is the topic of this blog post. Code of Civil Procedure section 1054(a) 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.

An ex-parte application for an extension of time to respond (plead) to a complaint in California is the topic of this blog post. Code of Civil Procedure section 1054(a) 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.”

The decision as to whether or not to grant an extension is left to the discretion of the judge hearing the motion. However generally speaking good cause could be established by a defendant who needs an extension of time to obtain the filing fees for the response, to obtain the funds to retain an attorney, they have contacted an attorney who needs more time to review the case; a family emergency requires the defendant to travel out of town. The supporting declarations should make a strong showing that circumstances beyond the control of the defendant have necessitated the request for an extension of time to respond.

Any application should state whether or not any previous extensions of time to respond by court order or stipulation have been granted.

Any defendant wishing to request an extension of time to respond should first contact the plaintiff or opposing party or their attorney and request that they stipulate to an extension. If the request is denied that fact should be mentioned in the supporting declaration.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of an 11 page sample ex-parte application for extension of time to respond to a complaint including brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to statutory authority, sample declaration and declaration regarding ex-parte notice and proposed order sold by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 255 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

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.