Motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) in United States District Court

A motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post. Rule 60(b)(6) (Rule 60) states that a Court can vacate a judgment for any other reason that justifies relief. This motion can also be filed in United States Bankruptcy Court under the provisions of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024.

A motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) is harder to obtain than motions filed under clauses 1-5 of Rule 60(b) in that the Courts have ruled that this motion can only be granted in extraordinary circumstances to prevent a manifest injustice. However if used in the right situations this motion makes sense particularly situations where the facts of the case do not meet the requirements of clauses 1-5 of Rule 60(b) even though extraordinary circumstances exist.

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: (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”

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.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as well as other Circuit Courts have stated that there is no strict time limitation on filing a motion to vacate a judgment under clause (6) of Rule 60(b) although in my personal opinion any party should file their motion as soon as possible after they have knowledge that a default judgment has been entered against them as the motion must be made within a reasonable time.

In discussing Rule 60 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has stated that this rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted.)

See also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, “The Federal Rules should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

Attorneys or parties in civil litigation in United States District Court who wish to view a portion of an 11 page sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) that includes 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 that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 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.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro or like my Facebook page at https://facebook.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to 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 deposition in United States District Court

A notice of deposition in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post. Depositions in United States District Court are authorized by Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 30). A party may also request production of documents of any party to the action at the deposition under Rule 34. This blog post will discuss serving a notice of deposition on a party to the action who is a natural person.

Anyone seeking to take the oral deposition of any party to the action should carefully review Rule 30 as it does contain numerous requirements that must be followed. These rules include requirements that the party not seek to take the deposition before the time specified in Rule 26(d) and that the party seeking to take the deposition give reasonable written notice to every other party to the action as well as include the name and address of the deponent if that is available as well as the date, time and location of the deposition.

Any party requesting production of documents should be sure to describe the requested documents with as much detail as possible.

Failure to comply with the requirements or failure to include the required information in the deposition notice may result in an objection being made by another party to the action or the deponent.

Attorneys or parties that would like to view a portion of a 9 page sample notice of deposition and request for production of documents for a natural person including brief instructions 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 300 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.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro or like his Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opposing a motion to amend a judgment to add alter ego as judgment debtor in California

Opposing a motion to amend a judgment to add an alter ego as a judgment debtor in California is the topic of this blog post. Any party in California wishing to oppose such a motion should serve and file their opposition at least nine (9) court days before the hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

Any party served with a motion to amend a judgment in California to add an alter ego as a judgment debtor should carefully review the motion and supporting declarations and exhibits to ascertain all possible grounds for opposition as are several very common grounds for an opposition to this motion including:

The grounds that the motion to amend is not supported by any credible and substantial evidence that would support a finding that the alleged alter ego controlled the litigation, conducted discovery or appeared at the trial in that the Judgment was obtained by default.

The grounds that the motion to amend is not supported by any credible and substantial evidence that would support a finding of alter ego liability in that no sufficient evidence has been presented that would indicate a unity of interest and ownership or commingling, misrepresentation or diversion of corporate assets.

The grounds that the motion to amend is not timely in that the Judgment was entered several years ago and no reasonable explanation has been given for the delay.

One California Court of Appeal has stated that it is the burden of the plaintiff to overcome the presumption of the separate existence of the corporate entity. Another California Court of Appeal has stated that alter ego is a drastic remedy that should be rarely used.

Yet another California Court of Appeal has stated that a trial court should not rely too heavily on factors such as inadequate capitalization or concentration of ownership and control.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a sample 12 page opposition to a motion to amend a judgment to add an alter ego as a judgment debtor 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 300 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.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to 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 to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) in United States District Court

A motion to vacate a default judgment in United States District Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4) (“Rule 60”) on the grounds that the judgment is void due to lack of personal jurisdiction as the defendant was not validly served with the summons and complaint is the topic of this blog post.

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: (4) the judgment is void;

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.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that if a defendant is not properly served that any default judgment entered against them is void because the defendant has not been served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and therefore the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that if the district court finds that a judgment is void they must vacate the judgment and does not need to consider the merits of any defense, any prejudice to the plaintiff or any culpable conduct on the part of the defendant.

A void judgment is a legal nullity. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1822 (3d ed.1933); see also id., at 1709 (9th ed.2009).

Although the term “void” describes a result, rather than the conditions that render a judgment unenforceable, it suffices to say that a void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 22 (1980); see also id., § 12.

And a well known Federal Practice Guide states that there is no time limitation on filing a Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See 11 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2862 (3d ed.2013). However in my opinion any party who has not been properly served with the summons and complaint should file their motion as soon as possible after they have knowledge that a default judgment has been 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.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted.)

See also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, “The Federal Rules should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

“Rule 60(b) is ‘remedial in nature and . . . must be liberally applied.’ ” TCI Group Life Ins. v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted.)

Attorneys or parties in civil litigation in United States District Court who wish to view a portion of an 11 page sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) that includes 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 300 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.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to 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.

Objection to statement of decision in dissolution (divorce) case in California

An objection to a statement of decision in a dissolution (divorce) case in California is the topic of this blog post.   Any objections to a statement of decision in California must be served and filed within 15 days after the proposed statement of decision has been served pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1590(g) which states that, “Any party may, within 15 days after the proposed statement of decision and judgment have been served, serve and file objections to the proposed statement of decision or judgment.”

Objections to a statement of decision may be filed in a legal separation, nullity or other family law case in California pursuant to Family Code section 210 which states that, “Except to the extent that any other statute or rules adopted by the Judicial Council provide applicable rules, the rules of practice and procedure applicable to civil actions generally, including the provisions of Title 3a (commencing with Section 391) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, apply to, and constitute the rules of practice and procedure in, proceedings under this code.”

Anyone served with any proposed statement of decision should carefully review it to determine if it complies with California requirements for a statement of decision. In certain cases the statement of decision is prepared by counsel for the opposing party who may have an incentive to include only vague and conclusory statements or legal conclusions instead of ultimate facts.

The statement of decision must also explain the legal and factual basis of the decision “as to each of the principal controverted issues” at trial. See Code of Civil Procedure § 632.

A California Court of Appeal has stated that the statement of decision must disclose the determination of the court on ALL issues of fact decided at the trial. Thus statements that are essentially legal conclusions such as “A contract existed between the parties” or “coverage existed under an insurance policy” are not sufficient.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a sample 11 page objection to a statement of decision in a divorce case 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 300 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.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Request for statement of decision in dissolution (divorce) in California

A request for a statement of decision in a dissolution (divorce) case in California is the topic of this blog post.  A request for a statement of decision in a California divorce case is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 632 and Family Code section 210.

Requesting a statement of decision is an excellent idea in any contested divorce case in California particularly where there are numerous issues such as child custody and visitation, child support, spousal support etc., that were decided at the trial.

A statement of decision is where the Court states the legal reasoning for its decision on certain contested issues which in legal terminology are known as controverted issues.  In my personal opinion any party involved in a contested divorce trial in California should request a statement of decision as the failure to request a statement of decision on all of the controverted issues in a case is almost always fatal to any possible appeal of the case in that the reviewing court is required to presume that every fact essential to the judgment was proved and found by the trial court if no statement of decision has been requested.

Any party appearing at the trial may request a statement of decision. If the trial is concluded within one calendar day, or in less than eight hours spread out over more than one day, the request must be made before the matter is submitted for decision. If the trial is longer than that, the request must be made within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision. See Code of Civil Procedure § 632.

A trial shall be deemed to actually commence at the beginning of the opening statement or argument of any party or his or her counsel, or if there is no opening statement, then at the time of the administering of the oath or affirmation to the first witness, or the introduction of any evidence. See Code of Civil Procedure § 581(a)(6).

The 10-day period for making the request commences at the time the clerk mails the copy of the minute order or decision. See Hutchins v. Glanda (1990) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1529, 1531.

If counsel makes a timely request for the statement, the court’s failure to prepare the statement is reversible error. See Social Service Union, Local 535 v. County of Monterey (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 676, 681.

The party requesting a statement of decision should be sure to include all important controverted issues in their request as a California Court of Appeal has stated that the request for a statement of decision must specify the controverted issues for which a statement of decision is requested. The trial judge is not required to sift through a host of improper specifications in search of a few arguably proper ones. Although a party cannot be prevented from using the request as a way of arguing with the court rather than clarifying the grounds of its decision, a party who makes that choice is not entitled to rely on the resulting document to insulate the judgment from the presumption of correctness. See Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 547, 558-559.

When there has been a request for a statement of decision, the statement of decision may be limited to only those issues specified in the request if less than all material issues are specified. See Harvard Investment Co. v. Gap Stores, Inc. (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 704, 709 n.3.

If an issue was not brought up at the trial, the reviewing court is under no obligation to address it. See Colony Ins. Co. v. Crusader Ins. Co. (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 743, 750-751.

A party waives any objection on appeal based on the trial court’s failure to file a written statement of decision when trial lasts less than one day and that party fails to make an oral request, and when language in that party’s points and authorities that were alleged to be a written request was not specific, but merely asked court to find in her favor. See Martinez v. County of Tulare (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 1430, 1434-1435.

If no statement of decision has been requested, the reviewing court is required to presume that every fact essential to the judgment was proved and found by the trial court. Review in these circumstances is limited to a determination as to whether there is any evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the judgment. See Agri-Systems, Inc. v. Foster Poultry Farms (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 1134-1135.

Requesting a statement of decision is an excellent way for any party involved in contested divorce proceedings in California to require that the Court give a detailed explanation of the basis and reasoning behind its decision.

Attorneys or parties who would like to view a portion of a sample 7 page request for statement of decision in a California divorce case that includes brief instructions as well as a sample proposal for content of statement decision 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 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

View sample legal document packages for sale by going to 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 judgment in unlawful detainer (eviction) in California

A motion for judgment in an unlawful detainer (eviction) in California is the topic of this blog post. Motions for judgment in an eviction in California are authorized by Code of Civil Procedure sections 631.8 and 1177. The biggest advantage of a motion for judgment is that unlike a motion for a nonsuit, a trial court may weigh the evidence and make factual findings based on the evidence the plaintiff or opposing party presented. However a motion for judgment can only be used in a non-jury or bench trial.

California law states that after a party has completed presentation of evidence in a court trial, the other party, without waiving the right to offer evidence in support of his or her defense or in rebuttal in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a judgment.   Thus it is somewhat similar to motion for nonsuit except that the court can weight the evidence.

Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8 states that,

“(a) After a party has completed his presentation of evidence in a trial by the court, the other party, without waiving his right to offer evidence in support of his defense or in rebuttal in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a judgment. The court as trier of the facts shall weigh the evidence and may render a judgment in favor of the moving party, in which case the court shall make a statement of decision as provided in Sections 632 and 634, or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. The court may consider all evidence received, provided, however, that the party against whom the motion for judgment has been made shall have had an opportunity to present additional evidence to rebut evidence received during the presentation of evidence deemed by the presenting party to have been adverse to him, and to rehabilitate the testimony of a witness whose credibility has been attacked by the moving party. Such motion may also be made and granted as to any cross-complaint.

(b) If it appears that the evidence presented supports the granting of the motion as to some but not all the issues involved in the action, the court shall grant the motion as to those issues and the action shall proceed as to the issues remaining. Despite the granting of such a motion, no final judgment shall be entered prior to the termination of the action, but the final judgment in such action shall, in addition to any matters determined in the trial, award judgment as determined by the motion herein provided for.

(c) If the motion is granted, unless the court in its order for judgment otherwise specifies, such judgment operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”

A party may file a motion for judgment in an unlawful detainer case as Code of Civil Procedure § 1177 states that, “Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter the provisions of Part II of this Code are applicable to, and constitute the rules of practice in the proceedings mentioned in this Chapter.”

A California Court of Appeal has ruled that a motion for judgment allows the trial court to dispense with the need for a party, usually but not always the defendant, to present evidence when, after weighing the evidence at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court is persuaded that the plaintiff has failed to sustain its burden of proof.

Another California Court of Appeal has ruled that while a motion for judgment is usually made by a defendant the same principles apply to a motion by the plaintiff at the close of the defendant’s case.

As with a motion for nonsuit a judgment operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless the court in its order for judgment otherwise specifies. See Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8(c).

A defendant or other party prevailing on a motion for judgment is entitled to recover their costs. See Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b).

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample 15 page motion for judgment that includes a memorandum of points and authorities, sample declaration 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 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

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

View sample legal document packages for sale by going to 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.