ALERTS, NOTICES & BLOG!

LawToolBox is a patented online rule-based deadline calculator designed for litigators and legal departments. Our web-based solution automates: (1) deadline calculations, (2) email reminders of upcoming deadlines with practice tips, (3) synchronizated deadlines into calendaring software like Outlook or Time Matters.

- select topic - All *10th Circuit *FRAP *FRCP Arizona California Colorado Colorado CAPP Kansas Michigan Montana Nevada New Mexico Oklahoma South Dakota Texas Utah Washington Wyoming

---

FAQ - CO District (CAPP) - Are 1st party claims (UIM, bad faith) against insurance companies within CAPP?
(Posted Date: 1/17/2012)

Issue:

Are first party claims against insurance companies (e.g., insurance bad faith, UIM, etc.) included within CAPP ?

Analysis:

The CAPP inclusion and exclusion language on this issue is a potential source of conflict between litigants. This issue will be addressed by the plaintiffs counsel in the first instance (since they designate a case as under CAPP in the case info sheet) subject to the court exercising its discretion to designate a matter in or out of CAPP, and subject to a challenge from defendants. UIM claims against an insurance carrier are arguably within by the inclusion language of Appendix A(I)(i), unless there has been a physical injury triggering the exclusion for personal injury under Appendix A(II)(i). Since we have heard from judges like Judge Pratt that it’s the "primary" claims that will control, it seems the personal injury exclusion would frequently override the first party insurance claims, and the case would not proceed under CAPP.

Want to Share Your Thoughts?

We are gathering feedback on this issue, and if you have an opinion or experience with the courts on this topic, we would love to share any thoughts you have on this issue with other members of the legal community. If you have any questions or CAPP issues you would to solicit feedback on, we would will try to get feedback from the community.

---

FAQ - CO District (CAPP) - What Kinds of Products Liabilities Cases are Included w/i CAPP?
(Posted Date: 1/17/2012)

Issue.

What kinds of products liabilities cases are included w/i CAPP given the following provisions:

1) PPR Appendix A(I)(o) specifically INCLUDES product liability actions within CAPP, but

2) PPR Appendix A(II)(i) specifically EXCLUDES "[a]ctions alleging negligence for physical injuries to one or more individual(s)".

Want to Share Your Thoughts?

We are gathering feedback on this issue, and if you have an opinion or experience with the courts on this topic, we would love to share any thoughts you have on this issue with other members of the legal community. If you have any questions or CAPP issues you would to solicit feedback on, we would will try to get feedback from the community

---

FAQ - CO District (CAPP) - CLE's & Resources
(Posted Date: 1/8/2012)


CLE's

CoBar, The Civil Access Pilot Project: New Rules of Civil Procedure for Cases in 5 Districts - Video On Demand

Resources

Colorado State Judicial Branch - Colorado Civil Access Pilot Project

Colorado State Judicial Branch - Self Help


For more updates on the Colorado Pilot Project from the LawToolBox community Follow Us on Twitter.

If you think we should supplement this list with additional information please let us know by sending an email to support@lawtoolbox.com

LawToolBox Blog - CAPP

---

ALERT - CO Divorce - Court of Appeals court allows abused siblings to sue social workers
(Posted Date: 1/5/2012)

Three siblings severely abused in the home of their biological mother and later in foster care can pursue their lawsuit against Adams County social workers who allegedly failed to protect them and deceived their adoptive parents about the extent of their problems.

See, Shirk v. Forsmark, 10CA2141 (Colo. App. Jan 2012).

Denver Post

---

ALERT - 10th Cir Court of Appeals - amendments to Local Rules (eff. Jan 1, 2012)
(Posted Date: 1/2/2012)

Other than cleaning of language, one of the more significant changes was made to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 5 for those instance in which a party seeks to "Appeal by Permission" which means that they can only file an appeal with permission upon filing a petition to do so.

The court added a requirement that any reply in support of the petition must be filed within 5 business days of the service of the response (i.e., reply is due 5 business days + 3 calendar days depending on method of service):

10th Cir. R. 5.1 Reply briefs.

A party seeking to file a reply in support of a petition may file a motion to that effect. Replies may be no longer than six pages in length in a 13 point font. The motion must include the proposed reply. Motions filed under this rule must be submitted within 5 business days of service of the response.

SINCE LAWTOOLBOX DOES NOT CALCULATE DEADLINES FOR A PERMISSIVE APPEAL NO MODIFICATIONS TO OUR CALCULATOR WERE REQUIRED.



RED-LINED 10th Cir Rules 2012

---

ALERT - CA Superior - San Diego - Rule Changes
(Posted Date: 1/1/2012)

Effective Jan 1, 2012, the following local rules were modified: SDLR 2.1.4, 2.1.1.8, 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.3.8, 2.4.1, and 2.4.11.

Amendments to SDLR 2.1.18 required modifying language in our reminders pertaining to motions in limine.

Amendments to SDLR 2.2.3 required adding a 10 day reminder for mailing settlement conference statements.

See also, SDLR 2.2.4(A) ("In accordance with the California Rules of Court, if a case is settled, the plaintiff must immediately give the court written notice. The plaintiff must also immediately notify the court by phone or in person if a hearing, conference, or trial date is imminent. ... Failure to advise the court at least five court days before the settlement conference that it will not proceed as scheduled, for any reason other than the settlement of the case in its entirety within the five court day period, may be deemed by the court to be a violation of an order of the court, punishable by monetary sanctions payable to the court under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5, as well as any other sanction provided by law. In addition to monetary sanctions, any party or attorney who fails to attend a settlement conference risks having their complaint dismissed or their answer stricken and default entered.").



SDLR (eff 1/1/2012)

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - Santa Barbara - Proposed Changes to Local Rules (eff 1/1/2012)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2012)

Modifications to LR 1309 did not change deadlines, but relate instead to attendance at Mandatory Settlement Conference. No modification to a timeframe is proposed.

Modifications to LR 1422 deleted any reference to settlement statements submitted prior to the Mandatory Settlement Conference being deemed confidential.No modification to a timeframe is proposed.

Modifications to LR 1503 make substantial changes to the deadlines pertaining to mediations, but none of these deadlines have been included in the LawToolBox calculator, and so these proposed modifications do not have to be incorporated into our calculator if these proposals are adopted.

Rule Changes (eff 1/1/12)

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - Santa Clara - Amendment to Local Rules (eff 1/1/2012)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2012)

Amendments to LR 6(D) would provide that a moving party could remove a scheduled motion off the court calendar without permission at least THREE COURT DAYS before hearing, but thereafter only with permission of the judge set to hear the matter:

LR6(D) provides: "A scheduled motion may be continued only upon application to the judge who is to hear the motion, upon a showing of good cause. A scheduled motion may be taken off calendar by the moving party no later than on the third court day before the hearing, and thereafter only with the permission of the judge who is to hear
the motion. Any request for relief by the party responding to the motion will remain set for hearing unless continued or withdrawn by that party."

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS DEADLINE IS NOT AVAILABLE IN OUR MOTIONS CALCULATOR.

Rule Change (eff 1/1/12)

---

ALERT - CO District (CAPP) - SUMMARY OF PILOT PROJECT RULES (eff. Jan 1, 2012)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2012)

New comments added Nov 1, 2011.

Pursuant to Chief Justice Directive 11-02, the Colorado Supreme Court has adopted a pilot project to study whether adopting certain rules regarding the control of the discovery process reduces the expense of civil litigation in certain business actions.

The pilot project is scheduled for two years, and shall apply to cases in enumerated districts filed after January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013 (or until further order of the court). The effect of the pilot will be studied by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) working at the request of the Court. IAALS will issue a report on the effect of the pilot project upon the conclusion of the two year pilot.

Key points are briefly summarized below and will be timely incorporated into LawToolBox calculators and deadlines:

1) The Pilot project Rules (PPR) govern all business actions within Appendix A and filed after January 1, 2012, in the following courts:

Jefferson, Gilpin (First District)
Denver (Second District)
Adams (Seventeenth District)
Arapahoe (Eighteenth District)

2) The following BUSINESS ACTIONS are INCLUDED in the pilot project:

* breach of contract
* business torts
* UCC
* commercial real property
* owner/investor derivative
* transactions with financial institutions
* internal business affairs
* insurance coverage
* dissolution of corporations, partnerships, LLC & joint ventures
* securities fraud and common law fraud
* antitrust actions
* intellectual property & trademarks
* professional malpractice actions NOT including medical negligence
* products liability



3) The following actions are specifically EXCLUDED:

* collection of rent money
* Rule 120 foreclosure proceedings
* appointing a receiver
* financial institutions collecting debts
* employment actions
* construction defects
* actions subject to governmental immunity
* medical negligence actions
* actions alleging negligence for physical injuries
* replevin
* admin agency actions
* actions based on a statute or rule that has distinct time frames
* satisfaction of judgment

4) CRCP still applies except to the extent there is an inconsistency. PPR 1.2



5) A plaintiff that believes CAPP applies to their case should use the CAPP Summons (form JDF 600.5) which provides that a responsive pleading is due 21 days after plaintiff files their initial disclosure statement, instead of the summons for non-CAPP litigation which requires that a defendant file its answer or other response within 21 days after service of the complaint and summons (or 35 days if served out-of-state).

6) Parties must plead and deny matters with a higher degree of specificity, and must include known monetary damages but not punitive damages. PPR 2



7) Initial disclosures by claimant are due 21 days after service of the complaint, PPR 3.1, and initial disclosures by defendant are due 21 days after an answer (or other responsive pleading) is served, PPR 3.3. Should litigants use the standard CRCP 26(a)(1) disclosure format, or does the pilot project require a new format for this pleading?



8) The deadline to file an answer is 21 days after the date the plaintiff files their initial disclosures (not the date the complaint is served), and the deadline to respond to a counterclaim is 21 days after the defendant makes their initial disclosure (not the date the counterclaim is served).

9) Failure to make initial disclosures will result in denial of right to use or object to information, dismissal of claims, attorney fees, etc., pursuant to PPR 3.7.

10) Parties may NOT stipulate to the extension of PPR 3 deadlines, and motions for extensions shall usually be denied, pursuant to PPR 3.8.

11) Filing of motion to dismiss shall not eliminate or delay the need to file an answer pursuant to PPR 4.1, and answer is due 21 days after the plaintiff files its PPR 3.1 disclosures pursuant to PPR 3.2.



12) Parties shall meet and confer re disclosures and preserving documents and things within 14 days after filing an answer pursuant to PPR 6.1.

13) If any parties makes a motion to preserve evidence, a response must be filed within 7 days pursuant to PPR 6.1. However, PPR 6.1 does not specify whether the trigger date for the response to preserve is the date the motion to preserve was served or filed.



14) Pursuant to PPR 7.1, the latest date for the court to hold the initial case management conference shall be 49 days after the answer is filed (this is also the first time parties may object to the adequacy of initial disclosures pursuant to PPR 3.4).

15) At least 7 days before the initial CMC conference the parties shall submit a joint report in the form contained in Appendix B.



16) At the initial CMC, when determining whether to permit discovery and/or MIL, the court chall consider the proportionality factors set forth in PPR 1.3

17) The extent of discovery must be proportional to the needs of the cases given the amount incontroversy and the complexity of the case. PPR 1.3

18) The limits and parameters of the expert discovery set forth at this conference by order shall be rigidly adhered to pursuant to PPR 7.3, PPR 10 and Appendix B (no extension of trial for failure to meet expert deadlines).

19) Each side may only endorse one expert pursuant to PPR 10.2, and "[t]here shall be no depositions or other discovery of experts." PPR 10.1(d).

20) The court must engage in ongoing case management pursuant to PPR 8.

21) Cases will be assigned to one judge for duration of proceedings

22) There are enhanced penalties for failing to disclose both helpful and harmful info. See, PPR 11.

23) This pilot project is loosely based on a similar procedure adopted in Oregon and which empirically demonstrated that these types of rules could move cases through the system faster while giving parties the sense that they had a fair opportunity to present their case. Consequently, this may be a good jurisdiction to research case law to help interpret any ambiguities or issues that arise. more info.


For more updates on the Colorado Pilot Project from the LawToolBox community Follow Us on Twitter.

If you would like to share any thoughts on this pilot project please send an email to support@lawtoolbox.com

Chief Justice Directive 11-02

---

ALERT - Co Water - Justice Hobbs confirms water rule changes apply to all cases pending on or filed after Jan 1 2012
(Posted Date: 12/21/2011)

We just got off the phone with Justice Hobbs form the Colorado Supreme Court, and he confirmed that the water rule changes apply to all cases pending on or filed after January 1, 2012, and that while the distinction for water matters filed before July 2009 and after July 2009 still applies, the rule changes effect all of those water matters.

Justice Hobbs said he had received a few calls on this issue. In response to these questions the court posted the following clarifying language on the court's website: "All deadlines that occur after January 1, 2012, even if the deadlines are in existing cases, should be calculated under the amended Water Court Rules and/or amended Rules of Civil Procedure, unless there is a Water Court order to the contrary."

Deadlines that were docketed in 2011 with expiration dates in 2012 and beyond will need to be re-calculated and re-docketed.

If you are interested in attending free webinars we are holding on the upcoming rule changes (typically 9am on Tuesdays and Thursdays) send an email to support@lawtoolbox.com.

For more updates on the rule changes from the LawToolBox community Follow Us on Twitter.

If you would like to share any thoughts on this rule change please send an email to support@lawtoolbox.com


Court Website - Water Law

---

ALERT - Co District Civil - TIME CALCULATION CHANGES TO COLORADO RULES (eff 1/1/2012)
(Posted Date: 12/14/2011)

Effective January 1, 2012, significant changes are coming for Colorado Rules, including CRCP and CAR. These rules were amended and adopted by the Court, En Banc, December 14, 2011. Further, the amendments to these rules are effective for all cases pending on or filed on or after the effective date of January 1, 2012.

Key points are briefly summarized below and will be timely incorporated into LawToolBox calculators and deadlines.


1) Scope. These sweeping changes impact:

* all district court cases (civil, divorce, APR, post decree, water, estate)
* all court of appeal cases
* all supreme court cases
* all workers compensation matters

2) Roll Positive Deadlines Forward & Roll Negative Deadlines Backwards. The rule changes to CRCP clarify the meaning of "the next day" when counting forwards and backwards. Compare, CRCP 6(a) ("The ‘next day’ is determined by continuing to count forward when the period is measured after an event and backward when measured before an event."); with, CAR 26 (which omits any clarification of “next day” perhaps because there are no deadlines in CAR that count backwards).

3) No More Court Days. The amendments eliminate court days!

4) All Deadlines Divisible by 7 so Never Fall on Weekend. The amendments conform deadlines throughout the Colorado Rules to the federal scheme of having deadlines divisible by 7. Statutory deadlines are not subject to modification unless they are subsequently amended by the legislature. Because so many trials start on a Monday, and all the deadlines that run off them are increments of 7, get ready for Monday madness!

5) The 3 Day Mail Rule Eliminated. To eliminate the problem with deadlines divisible by 7 being moved out an additional 3 days and therefore possibly being moved to a weekend, the 3 DAY MAIL RULE has been eliminated!

6) Deadline to file Daubert Motion Disputing Expert Qualifications Added. Changes to CRCP 16(b)(9) add a requirement that parties file a motion objecting to expert qualifications 10 weeks before trial.

7) Deadlines Related to Motions Adjusted. Under the rule change, the deadline to respond to a motion shall be 21 days after the motion is filed (the rule FINALLY clarifies that the trigger date for the response is the date of filing); except if a motion is filed less than 42 days before trial then the responding party shall only be afforded 14 days to file a response. A reply is due 7 days after the response is filed; except if filing a reply in support of a motion for summary judgment parties shall have 14 days to file a reply. The deadline to file written motion and notice of hearing not later than 5 days before hearing pursuant to CRCP 6(d) has been eliminated. And the deadline for the prevailing party to file and serve a proposed order has been changed from 10 court days after being order to do so by the court to 14 calendar days after such time pursuant to CRCP 121 lr 1-15(5).

Rule Changes

---

ALERT - CO USDC - Rule changes to D.C.COLO.LCivR
(Posted Date: 12/1/2011)

Modifications primarily relate to AP proceedings, sealing records, and public access to court information.

One of the more interesting modifications was the elimination of magistrate court settlement conferences which had become standard in every civil case. While this rule change will practice in federal court, it did not impact any rule-based deadlines. See, G. Whitehair, Settlement Conferences No Longer Routine, CBA CLE Legal Connection (1/10/2012).

None of these amendments required modification to the LawToolBox calculator.

Red-Lined Amendments Dec 2011

---

ALERT - Amendment to Water Law Rules (eff 1/1/2012)
(Posted Date: 11/3/2011)

Amendments to Water Rules 2,3,6,and 11 were adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court on November 3, 2011, effective January 1, 2012.

The purpose of these amendments is to make deadlines under the rules divisible by 7 so that - once the more comprehensive rules to CRCP eliminating court days and the getting rid of adding 3 days under "the mail rule" are also adopted -- deadline will never expire on a weekend.

Uniform LR - Water Court

---

ALERT - UT District (Civil) - Amendments to Local Rules (eff 11/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 11/1/2011)

A primary purpose of the 2011 amendments is to give effect to the long-standing but often overlooked directive in Rule 1 that the Rules of Civil Procedure should be construed and applied to achieve "the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." The amendments serve this purpose by limiting parties to discovery that is proportional to the stakes of the litigation, curbing excessive expert discovery, and requiring the early disclosure of documents, witnesses and evidence that a party intends to offer in its case-in-chief. The committee's purpose is to restore balance to the goals of Rule 1, so that a just resolution is not achieved at the expense of speedy and inexpensive resolutions, and greater access to the justice system can be afforded to all members of society.

Due to the significant changes in the discovery rules, the Supreme Court order adopting the 2011 amendments makes them effective only as to cases filed on or after the effective date, November 1, 2011, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or ordered by the court.

Amendments to URCP 1,8,9,16,26,26.1, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 54 are adopted and promulgated effective Nov. 1, 2011.

Amendments to URCP will be effective only as to cases filed on or after Nov. 1, 2011, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court.

Amended URCP (eff 11/1/11)

---

ALERT - MT State District - Comprehensive Rule Changes adopted (eff 10/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 10/1/2011)

These rule changes are comprehensive, they were modified on the recent changes to FRCP in large part, and almost every rule was modified in either style or content.

* Deadlines were conformed to be divisible by 7.

* Court days have been eliminated.

* In the event a deadline lands on holiday, the “next day” is determined by continuing to count forward when the period is measured after an event and backward when measured before an event.

* Special rules were adopted to make it easier for attorneys to make a limited appearance to assist a party appearting pro se.

However, while some state adopting the "divisible by 7" rule have eliminated the 3 days mail rule (e.g., see Colorado), Montana has retained the 3 day mail rule which tends to reduce the effectiveness of making deadlines a function of 7 when the trigger date is "service" and 3 days are added.

Like almost every other state adopting significant rule changes, the concept of "proportionality" in the amount of discovery allowed has been formalized in Montana.

After such a comprehensive set of amendments, its not surprising that a few incongruities exist such as: MRCP 68 requires that defendant make an offer of judgment "more than 14 days before trial", which is technically 15 days before trial, which deviates from the "divisible by 7" rule. Then, the plaintiff has 14 days after service of the offer to accept, which is fine if the offer is hand-delivered, but if the offer is mailed then arguably 3 days should be added to the deadline to accept the offer under MRCP 6(e). This leads to the potentially bizarre dilemna that if an offer of judgment is mailed exactly 15 days before trial, the plaintiff could theoretically accept the offer of judgment 2 days after the trial starts (which could lead to some strange arguments in a one-day trial).



Rule Changes eff 10-1-11

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - San Mateo - Proposed Changes to Local Rules (eff 1/1/2012)
(Posted Date: 10/1/2011)

Pursuant to California Government Code § 70631 and California Rules of Court, Rule 10.613 (g) and 10.815(b), the proposed amendments to the Local Rules and new local court fees ATTACHED HERETO are hereby distributed for public comment.

Comments must be submitted addressed to Proposed Rules and Fees via email at
smsccomment@sanmateocourt.org. Please state the proposal number, the section and paragraph number on which you are commenting and your comment. Comments must be received no later than 4:00 p.m. on November 14, 2011.

Proposed Changes (eff 1/1/12)

---

ALERT - AZ Superior Court - Civil - Rule Changes go into effect (1/1/2012)
(Posted Date: 9/30/2011)

ARP 15 is amended to permit a party to amend as of right within 21 days (instead of 20 days) after service of the pleading if no response is premitted (or within 21 days of service of the responsive pleading if one is required or on the date a response to a Rule 12 motion is due).

ARP 77(d) - right to change judge upon filing of notice of appeal is deleted.

The experimental or pilot sections ARP 8 section dealing with complex cases are made permanent.

ARP 68 is modified to clarify how offer of judgment is handled when an arbitration hearing is involved.

Rule Changes (1/1/2012)

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - Orange - comment on proposed rule changes (10/24/2011)
(Posted Date: 9/25/2011)



Proposed Rule Changes

---

ALERT - CA Superior Court - ALAMEDA - proposed amendments to local rules
(Posted Date: 9/21/2011)

The proposed effective date for the rule changes to local rules was not noted.

The last day to comment is 11/7/2011.

Of note:

LR 5.25 - a request to set a trial date would now be included in, and made by filing, a REQUEST FOR CASE RESOLUTION.

LR 5.30 - if a motion is continued for than 60 days each, and financial issues are involved, the requirement in 5.30(c) that each party must file and serve a current Income and expense declaration has been removed.

Language and forms have been modified (for example, what was previously called a "status conferences" mayb now in some instances be referred to as a "case resolution conferences"). However, these proposed rule changes do not require any modificatino to the LawToolBox calculator if adopted as proposed.

Proposed amend to local rules

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - LA - proposed rule changes (eff 1/1/2012)
(Posted Date: 9/15/2011)

Comments are due October 31, 2011.

LR 5.7(a) - change deadline to request extension of telephone conference from 3 pm biz day before hearing, to 3 pm 2 biz day before hearing. Also, if evidentiary hearinng was set, party seeking telephone conf must appear anyway to request continuance in person.

LR 5.11 (domestic relations) the requirement that "the moving party must prepare a written order within five court days following a hearing, submit it to opposing counsel, for approval as to form, and file it with the court" has been removed in lieu of a procedure that follows the new CRC 5.125. The new procedure requires that order be prepared by the prevailing party within 5 calendar days, and objections to proposed order must be served with 5 days of service of proposed motion. See, http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SPR11-36.pdf

proposed changes (eff 1/1/12)

---

ALERT - TX State District - TRCP 168 amended to allow permissive appeals
(Posted Date: 9/9/2011)

TRCP 168. Permission to Appeal. On a party's motion or on its own initiative, a trial court may permit an appeal from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable, as provided by statute. Permission must be stated in the order to be appealed. An order previously issued may be amended to include such permission. The permission must identify the controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and must state why an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

This rule must be contrued with TRAP 28.3 which requires that a petition to the court of appeals for permission to appeal be filed within 15 days after the order which includes the permission to appeal is signed.

The enabling order clarifies that "This Order clarifies that the rules adopted and amended by this Order apply only to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2011."

No LawToolBox deadlines were modified as a result of this order because we do not track deadlines to appeal in this calculator.

Admin Order 11-9183

---

ALERT - TX State District - TRCP 167 to add costs of depositions and to cap recovery at non-econ award
(Posted Date: 9/9/2011)

The enabling order clarifies re the amendment to TRCP 167: "This Order clarifies that the rule amendments adopted by this Order apply only to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2011."

TRCP 167.4(c)(2) was amended to include "reasonable deposition costs" to the costs that can be award under this rule.

TRCP 167.4(d) was amended to clarify that for cases filed BEFORE 9/1/2011 costs aswarded under this rule must not exceed the sum of noneconomic damages + exemplary damages + 1/2 economic damages - liens.

TRCP 167.4(d) was amended to clarify that for cases filed AFTER 9/1/2011 costs aswarded under this rule must not exceed: "In cases filed on or after September K 2011. the litigation costs that may be awarded to any party under this rule must not exceed the total amount that the claimant recovers or would recover before adding an award of litigation costs under this rule in favor of the claimant or subtracting as an offset an award of litigation costs under this rule in favor of the defendant."

This rule change did not modify any deadlines calculated by LawToolBox.

Admin Order 11-9182

---

ALERT - TX USDC NORTH - LR 7.1(i) & 7.2(e) amended eff 9/1/2011
(Posted Date: 9/1/2011)

The modifications impacted the description of the types of documents and materials that must be included in an appendix to the motion or response, and supporting briefs.

No modification to the LawToolBox calculators were required because of this amendment.

Special Order No 2-78

---

ALERT - Updated Filing Fees, Surcharges & Costs in Colorado State Court
(Posted Date: 8/29/2011)

This information is designed to provide members of the public, members of the bar, and court personnel with the most current filing fees, surcharges, and cost information for the Colorado State Courts. Only the most frequently used fees, surcharges, and costs are indicated. All fees, surcharges, and costs include the appropriate statutory reference and applicable taxes and special fees. All fees, surcharges and costs are current as of January 1, 2011.

If you have questions, please direct them first to the appropriate Clerk of Court in your county. You may also call Court Business Services of the State Court Administrator’s Office at 303 861-1111 for assistance:

Colorado Judicial Branch
Office of the State Court Administrator
101 W. Colfax, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202

Filing Fees, Surcharges, Costs

---

AZ USDC - Civil - New Calculator and special note re "Notice of Service" for various discovery events
(Posted Date: 8/1/2011)

As of August 1, 2011, LawToolBox offers a deadline calculator for civil litigation in the United State District Court for the District of Arizona!

While the deadline descriptions and email reminders speak for themselves in helping you navigate through procedural pitfalls and traps, please note that local rules for this venue require that a party file a "Notice of Service" of disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2), and discovery requests or responses.

See, LRCiv 5.2 ("A "Notice of Service" of the disclosures and discovery requests and responses listed in Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed within a reasonable time after service of such papers.")

Compare, FRCP 5(d)(1) ("Any paper after the complaint that is required to be served — together with a certificate of service — must be filed within a reasonable time after service. But disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2) and the following discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing: depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents or tangible things or to permit entry onto land, and requests for admission.")

---

ALERT - TX USDC EAST - deadline to efile complaint w/i 24 hr of commencement gone
(Posted Date: 8/1/2011)

Under the former rule language, a case could be opened in CM/ECF without a complaint
for at least 24 hours. A case cannot commence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 without the filing of the complaint, however. The amendment fixes this problem.

LR CV-4(b) now reads: Electronic Filing of Complaints. Attorneys must electronically file a civil complaint upon opening a civil case in CM/ECF. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 3.

Amend to LR CV-4(b) eff 8/11

---

ALERT - TX State District - TRCP 18a amended re recusal or disqualification of judge
(Posted Date: 8/1/2011)

Rule Committe Comment to 2011 Change:

Rule 18a governs the procedure for recusing or disqualifying a judge sitting in any trial court other than a statutory probate court, justice court, or municipal court. Chapter 25 of the Government Code governs statutory probate courts, Rule 528 governs justice courts, and Chapter 29 of the Government Code governs municipal courts. Under Rule 18a, a judge's rulings may not be the sole basis for a motion to recuse or disqualify the judge. But when one or more sufficient other bases are raised, the judge hearing the motion may consider evidence of rulings when considering whether to grant the motion. For purposes of this rule, the term"rulings" is not meant to encompass a judge's statements or remarks about a case.

The amendments to Rule 18b are not intended to be substantive.

This rule change did not modify any deadlines calculated by LawToolBox.

Admin Order 11-9141

---

ALERT - WA USDC EAST - Amendment to Local Rules (eff 7/25/11)
(Posted Date: 7/25/2011)

Amendment to LR 10.1(a):

Subsection (4) was added:

(4) Citations to documents in the record, including declarations,
exhibits, and any documents previously filed, shall include a citation to the
electronic case filing (ECF) record number and the page number within that ECF
record, and shall be in the following format, “ECF No. ___ at __ .” (Example:
ECF No. 24 at 2.)

Summary of Rule Changes

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - LA - stylization rule changes (eff 7/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 7/1/2011)

From 2009 to 2011, a subcommittee of the Los Angeles Superior Court Rules
Committee worked on a project to reorganize and revise the Los Angeles
Local Rules.

The committee sought to improve the organization of the rules, eliminate
rules which merely repeated existing state laws or California Rules of Court, and make
appropriate stylistic changes. In addition, the goal of the project has been to update all
rules to reflect changes in state law, the California Rules of Court, and actual practices of
the court.

While the purpose of the revisions was not to effectuate policy changes, at least one substantive change is the apparent elimination of the requirement in former LR 7.9(c) that plaintiff file the arbitration report at least 5 COURT days before a further status conference.

The revisions have been adopted by the court’s Rules Committee and Executive Committee, effective July 1, 2011.

Style Rule Changes (7/1/2011)

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - San Bernardino - Rule Changes (eff 7/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 7/1/2011)

Rules impacted by July 2011 rule changes: 731 & 731.1 (civil ex parte application), Chapter 14 (bunch of stuff on fees).

No modification to LawToolBox deadline calculatror was required.

Red-lined Local Rules 7/1/2011

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - San Mateo - Local Rules Amended (eff 7/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 7/1/2011)

Revisions effective July 1, 2011
Cover Page-amended, Update Instructions – amended; Table of Contents; Summary of Changes-amended;Filing Instructions-amended; List of Effective Rules amended; Alphabetical Index amended;

The following Rules are Amended or Added:

Division II – Rule 2.11 is added regarding return of exhibits after a civil trial.

Division IV – Rule 4.77.2 is amended to correct the days guardianship hearings are held.
Rule 4.81.1 is amended eliminating use of the Judicial Council form GC 330 “Order Appointing Court Investigator”.

Rule 4.81.4 is amended to eliminate use of the Judicial Council form GC 330 “Order
Appointing Court Investigator” and that appointment of the Investigator will be done by a Standing Order of the Court. It is also amended to include when investigations will take place.

Division V – Rule 5.7 G. is amended so that the Rule will conform with Fam.C. § 217 that became effective on January 1, 2011.

Rule 5.14.1 is added to provide procedures for processing complaints on court appointed
counsel in family law proceedings. This Rule is mandated by CRC 5.240(e).

Except as noted above, Division II (Court Management) andf Division III (Civil Law and Motion) were NOT IMPACTED BY THIS RULE CHANGE and therefore, the LawToolBox calculator did not require modification.

---

ALERT - CA State Superior Court - amendments to CRC re telephone appearance (eff 7/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 7/1/2011)

These rule changes effect who can provide telephone appearance services, and the fees that they can charge.

CRC 3.670(j)(2). An additional late request fee of $30 is to be charged for an appearance by telephone if the request to the vendor or the court providing telephone appearance services is not made at least three days before the scheduled appearance.

No modification to LawToolBox deadlines required because deadline already accounted for in CRC 3.670(g)(1)(B).



CRC amend eff 7/1/2011

---

ALERT - CA Superior Court - Santa Clara - rule change effective July 1, 2011
(Posted Date: 7/1/2011)

LawToolBox reviewed the 7/1/2011 rule changes and added deadline to request expedited trial (same time as trial setting conf).

No other modifications to deadline calculator were required.


Rule Change eff 7/1/2011

---

ALERT - Proposed changes to URCP
(Posted Date: 6/21/2011)

2011-06-21

Rules of Civil Procedure

NOTICE FROM UTAH SUPREME COURT ADVISORY COMMITTEE


The Civil Rules Committee has been working on extensive amendments to the rules, and particularly the discovery rules, in an effort to reduce the cost and delay of civil litigation. The draft rules were informally published in June 2010, and members of the committee met with lawyers and judges throughout the state to explain the rules and seek comments and suggestions. The informal comment period ended in December 2010.

Since then, the committee has reviewed and discussed all comments, and the draft rules were revised in response to some of them. The most significant changes were to specify “tiers” of standard discovery based on the amount at issue in the litigation and to provide parties with the choice of receiving a report from an opposing expert, or taking a 4-hour deposition of the opposing expert.

The draft rules are now being officially published, and comments will be accepted during the 45-day comment period. The committee will consider all comments received, make further changes to the rules if warranted, and then send its recommendations to the Supreme Court.



Proposed changes to URCP

---

ALERT - USDC CA CENTRAL - rule changes to local rules adopted (eff 6/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 6/1/2011)

The Court has adopted the following amended Local Rules:


L.R. 56-3 Determination of Motion. In determining any motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment, the Court may assume that the material facts as claimed and adequately supported by the moving party are admitted to exist without controversy except to the extent that such material facts are (a) included in the “Statement of Genuine Disputes” and (b) controverted by declaration or other written evidence filed in opposition to the motion.


L.R. 73-2.4.1 Cases Originally Filed in District Court. Except as provided in L.R. 73-2.4.1.1, a case originally filed in District Court and initially assigned only to a magistrate judge shall be randomly reassigned to a district judge if any defendant has not filed a statement of consent within 42 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant, if the plaintiff has not filed a statement of consent within 42 days after service upon the first-served defendant, if any party applies for a temporary restraining order, or if any party makes a motion that the magistrate judge concludes cannot be decided by the magistrate judge and must be addressed before the period for consent expires.


L.R. 73-2.4.2 Cases Removed from State Court. A case initially assigned only to a magistrate judge following removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. shall be randomly reassigned to a district judge if, within 14 days after the notice of removal is filed, plaintiff(s) and all defendants upon whom service has been effected have not filed a statement of consent, if any party applies for a temporary restraining order, or if any party makes a motion that the magistrate judge concludes cannot be decided by the magistrate judge and must be addressed before the period for consent expires.


L.R. 73-2.5 Party Added After Election to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. If a party is added to the case after all previous parties have elected to proceed before a magistrate judge, the newly-added party may file a statement of consent within 42 days after the order allowing intervention, or after service of the summons and appropriate pleading. If the newly-added party does not file a statement of consent within this period, the case shall be randomly reassigned to a district judge for further proceedings.


The amended Local Rules are effective June 1, 2011, and shall govern in all proceedings in cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending.


NOTHING IN THIS RULE CHANGE REQUIRED MODIFICATION TO THE LAWTOOLBOX CALCULATOR.

Notice from the Clerk

---

ALERT - TX USDC EAST - Local Rules amended eff 3/15/2011
(Posted Date: 4/21/2011)

A number of ambiguities in the rules were cleaned up, but there were no substantive modifcations to the deadline calculators required since.

For example the requirement in LR CV-4(b) that a complaint be efiled with 24 hours was clarified, but the deadline did not change.

The only deadlines that were added related to patent matters, and since this calculator doe snot encompass specific patent deadlines they were not included in the calculator.

General Order 11-03

---

ALERT - Water Division 1 implements new Standard Order eff April 20, 2011
(Posted Date: 4/20/2011)

This administrative order compliments the deadlines set forth in Rule 11. Here is a brief summary of some of the more important deadlines:

1) It adds a requirement that proof of publication of the resume notice be filed within 180 days of the date of publication.

2) The responsible attorney must file a NOTICE TO SET within 15 days of the date of re-referral.

3) The initial status conference must take place within 60 days of the date of re-referral.

4) The responsible attorney shall provide possible date for trial, and the date of the conference itself, and phone numbers for the conference, at least 15 days before the intial status conference.

5) A pretrial readiness conference shall be held at least 30 days before trial if trial is to last for 3 or more days.

6) Any party not filing a trial brief may not appear at trial.

7) Trial exhibits (notebook in electronic format) must be tendered on or before trial.

Division 1 - Admin Order

---

ALERT - MT District - amendments to MRCP (eff. 3/15/11)
(Posted Date: 3/15/2011)

The Montana Supreme Court adopted the attached Montana Uniform District Court Rules, which reflect several amendments to those Rules.

Specifically, in Rule 1(a)(5), the court simplified the requirements for the type of recycled paper to be used in court filings, reflecting an upcoming change to the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Second, in the opening clause of Rule 10, the court added a reference to our recent express authorization of limited scope representation by Montana attorneys via amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finally, the court made technical changes substituting references to “counsel” with references to “parties” and substituting gender-neutral phrases for references to “he” and “him.”

In all other substantive respects, the Rules are unchanged.

3/15/2011 amendments to MRCP

---

PROPOSED RULE - CO State District Court Civil - Proposed Pilot Project Rules - Public Hearing 1/19/2011
(Posted Date: 1/19/2011)

As the culmination of the Access to justice project spearheaded by Justice Kourlis, the Colorado Supreme Court is likely to adopt Pilot Proect Rules in the first half of 2011. These rules will apply to a certain class of "business cases" and medical malpractice cases subject to the HCAA. Key points include:

* parties must plead and deny matters with a higher degree of specificity
* initial disclosures due at approx same time as the answer/response to complaint
* the court will require Case Management Conferences
* proportionate discovery on specific topics to be set at the conference
* court must engage in ongoing case management
* cases will be assigned to one judge for duration of proceedings
* enhanced penalties for failing to disclose both helpful and harmful info
* detailed expert disclosure required (use a court form)
* only one expert per topic

This pilot project is based on a similar procedure adopted in Oregon and which empirically demonstrated that these types of rules could move cases through the system faster while giving parties the sense that they had a fair opportunity to present their case.

Proponents were hoping that this rule would go into effect in the first quarter of 2011, but more likely some version of this rule will go into effect in the second quarter of 2011 .

A Public Hearing on these proposed rules will be held at the Supreme Court on 1/19/2011 at 1:30 pm:

Colorado Supreme Court
101 W. Colfax, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
303-837-3790

Here is the list of speakers.

For people who want more info on this pilot project, Troy Rackam, Esq., of McConnel Fleischner Houghtaling & Craigmile LLC did a great 1 hour CLE on civil procedure including this rule change on December 21, 2010. See, Civil Procedure: 2010 Annual Survey of Colorado Law

Proposed Pilot Project Rules

---

ALERT - CO Court of Appeals - Rule Change to CAR 4.2 re Interlocutory Appeals
(Posted Date: 1/13/2011)

While the entire rule should be read in its entirety, pay close attention to:

Deadline to Move Trial Court for Certification (order to be appealed + 14 days). CAR 4.2(c) now provides: "The party seeking to appeal shall move for certification or submit a stipulation signed by all parties within fourteen days after the date of the order to be appealed ...."

If Certified - Deadline to File Pet in Court of Appeals (cert order + 14 days). Further, CAR 4.3(d) provides "If the trial court certifies an order for an interlocutory appeal, the party seeking an appeal shall file a petition to appeal with the clerk of the court of appeals with an advisory copy served on the clerk of the trial court within fourteen days of the date of the trial court’s certification."

Interlocutory Appeal Does not Auto Stay trial Court. CAR 4.3(e)(1) provides: "The filing of a petition under this rule does not stay any proceeding below or the running of any applicable time limit. If the appellant seeks temporary stay pending the court’s determination of whether to grant the petition to appeal, a stay ordinarily shall be sought in the first instance from the trial court. ".

CAR 4.2 Rule Change

---

NOTICE - CO State District Court Civil - Brief Overview of Developments in Colorado Law in 2010
(Posted Date: 1/10/2011)

The following is brief, but not comprehensive, overview of some of the developments in Colorado Law in 2010:

* CRCP 47(a)(5) was amended to instruct jurors to avoid discussing the outcome of the case until the close of evidence, and only when all jurors are present. No LawToolBox action was required.

* CRCP 47(u) was amended limit juror voir vire, unless the court makes a specific finding of good cause to permit more juror questions. A related provision in CRCP 16(f)(3)(VII) was modified to instruct the parties confer and state their positions re the amount of time needed for juror examination. LawToolBox action: modified our Trial Management Order to include a note reminding parties of their duty to inform the court of their positions re time needed for juror examination, and the need for good cause to enlarge the permitted time.

* CRCP 121 lr 1-1 was amended to require that upon withdrawal from a case by an attorney, if the client is a corporation or business, that the attorney notify the client that in subsequent appearances and filings that it is required “to be represented by counsel in any court proceeding unless it is a closely held entity and first complies with CRS 13-1-127.” LawToolBox action: modified the language of our Motion to Withdraw to comport with the new language of CRCP 121 lr 1-1.

* Case Law - Collateral Source Rule. See, Volunteers of America Colorado Branch v. Gardenswartz (Nov 15, 2010) (Supreme Court considered whether a successful tort plaintiff may recover damages for the full amount of medical expenses incurred, or may recover only the discounted amount paid by the plaintiff’s third-party insurance company. The Court held that under the collateral source rule, as codified by the contract exception of CRS §13-21-111.6, plaintiff may recover in full from defendant, because plaintiff was indemnified for the entire amount of medical services billed to him as a result of the health insurance contract he had purchased. The benefits from this policy, including the health-care provider discounts, are from a collateral source, and the tortfeasor may not use these independently procured benefits to reduce its liability for the reasonable value of the medical services rendered to plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ judgment was affirmed.). See also, Crossgrove v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. 09CA0689, 2010 WL 2521744 (Colo. App. 2009) (selected for publication) (plaintiffs were allowed to recover the full damages awarded against defendants even though the plaintiffs also received compensation from collateral sources, and “evidence of the amount paid by third-party payors, and conversely, the amount discounted (or written off) from the billed amount due under a contract between the third-party payor and the provider, is inadmissible under the common law collateral source rule even to show the reasonable value of services rendered, because these payments and discounts constitute collateral sources.”). LawToolBox action: modified our email reminder for the deadline to “Notify Healthcare Providers of Personal Injury Suit” to include information regarding this case.

* Case Law – Award of Costs on Rule 12 Dismissal. In Crandall v. City and County of Denver, 238 P.3d 659 (Colo. 2010) the court once again affirmed that when a tort claim is dismissed on a Rule 12 motion, that an award of costs under CRS 13-16-122 is mandatory, and the amount of costs awarded may not be reduce just because the costs would have also been incurred in a related matter pending in federal court. LawToolBox action: modified email reminders and Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss, and the Motion for Attorney Fees after Rule 12 Dismissal to note this case law.

* Case Law – Rule 56(f) Motion to Extend Time to Respond to SJ Must be Supported. The supporting affidavit explaining why more time is needed to gather facts and conduct discovery must be very detailed, particularly in light of recent case law where the court of appeals held that it was not arbitrary or capricious for the trial court to simultaneously: (i) deny a Rule 56(f) motion for extension of time (because the affidavit did not contain the level of degree and specificity to support the need for additional time to conduct discovery and gather facts), and (ii) to grant the underlying motion for summary judgment as being unopposed. See, Bailey v. Airgas-Intermountain, Inc., ___ P.3d ___, 2010 WL 1913798 (Colo. App. 2010). LawToolBox action: added this note to the Rule 56(f) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion.

* Case Law - Trial Clocks May be Permissible. In Maloney v. brassfield, ___ P.3d ___, 2010 WL3584392 (Colo. App. 2010), the court of appeal approved the trial courts use of a trial clock, provided that the parties have been given advance notice of the procedure and certain fairness safeguards are met. LawToolBox action: added this note to the trial email reminder.

* Case Law – Contingent Fee Agreements & Unjust Enrichment. See, Berra v. Springer and Steinberg PC, __ P.3d __, 2010 WL 3259883 (Colo. App. 2010) (even though attorney fee agreement complied with requirements of CRCP 23.3, trial court and court of appeals held that contingent fee recovery was excessive and unreasonable, and that law firm was only entitled to a reduced fee based on quantum meruit). LawToolBox action: notation added to detailed and simple contingent fee agreement.

* Case Law - While full disclosure of expert testimony is the rule, it is not without limitation. In Garrigan v. Bowen, __ P.3d __, 2010 WL 4869981, 10SA20 (Colo. 2010), the Colorado Supreme Court limited the ability of trial courts to preclude expert testimony as a discovery sanction. In Garrigan, the trial court had precluded expert testimony for failure to allow discovery of raw data underlying an article written by the expert. The Supreme Court reversed, stating that unless the raw data was actually considered and used by the expert to form his opinion in the actual case, it was not subject to discovery and it was inappropriate to exclude all testimony from the expert. See also, Trattler v. Citron, 182 P.3d 674 (Colo. 2008) (holding that "preclusion of expert witnesses for failure to provide testimonial history is a disproportionate sanction.").

---

ALERT - 10th Cir Court of Appeals - amendments to Local Rules (eff. Jan 1, 2011)
(Posted Date: 1/2/2011)

Some minor amendments were made to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRAP) effective December 1, 2010:

* FRAP 1(b) was amended to refine the definition of "state"

* FRAP (4)(a)(7) was amended to change a refernce to a re-numbered FRCP citation.

* FRAP 29(c) was amended to add various disclosure requirements for an amicus brief to help identify whether an exchange of mony or an interested party may have effected the positions taken in the brief.


Local Rules for the Tenth Circuit were amended effective January 1, 2011. Throughout the local rules proposed changes have been made to delete references to General Orders, to delete superfluous language, and further:

* 10th Cir. R. 22.2 was amended to incorporate various long-standing procedures related to death penalty cases from the court's longstanding General order on "procedures for the management of death penalty matters."

* 10th Cir. R. 25.3, 25.4 and proposed 25.5 were amended to replace a specific refernce to the court's General Order on electronix filing with a more general reference to a "link" on the courts website re the court's electronic user manual.

* 10th Cir. R. 34.1 was amended to change the court's procedure for how parties can access oral argument recordings.

* 10th Cir. R. 46.3 was amended to clarify the court's policies with respect to counsels responsibilities in criminal and post-conviction cases.

These rule changes impacted forms more so than deadlines.

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - Conflict in Deadline to Respond to Amended Complaint Resolved (eff 1/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

Prior to January 1, 2011, a conflict existed between rule and statute concerning the time to respond to an amended complaint. See, Invitation to Comment (comment period closed June 2010).

Prior to amendment, CRC Rule 3.3120, which governs demurrers, provided that a defendant had 10 days to plead to a complaint "after the complaint is amended" or the time to amend had expired if a demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j)(2).)

In contrast, Code of Civil Procedure section 471.5 requires a defendant to answer an amended complaint within 30 days after service. And, CRC Rule 3.110(b) provides that "When the complaint is amended to add a defendant, the added defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint.

By amendment the portion of CRC Rule 3.3120 which incorporated "amendment of the complaint" into its 10 day deadline was stricken, and instead, the subdivision’s 10-day requirement to plead will apply only to a responsive pleading following (1) the overruling of a demurrer, (2) the expiration of time to amend if a demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, and (3) the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend.

Because the 10-day requirement of CRC Rule 3.3120 to plead will no longer apply to an amended complaint, there is no longer any inconsistency with CCP section 471.5 or CRC Rule 3.110(b).

Amendments to CRC (1/1/2011)

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - Clarification of How to Calculate Deadlines Prior to Hearings
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

Effective 1/1/2011, Section 12c was added to CCP 2-33 to clarify how to calculate deadlines to be performed a certain number of days prior to a hearing:

12c. (a) Where any law requires an act to be performed no later
than a specified number of days before a hearing date, the last day
to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward from the
hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing as provided by
Section 12.

12c (b) Any additional days added to the specified number of days
because of a particular method of service shall be computed by
counting backward from the day determined in accordance with
subdivision (a).

Julie Goren of www.litigationbythenumbers.com posted a great analysis.

CCP 2-33 with 12c

---

ALERT - AZ Superior Court Civil - Rule change affecting form not timing of subpoenas (eff. 1/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

The September 2010 amendment to rule 45 effects the form of subpoenas, but not the timing of objections thereto, and there fore does not necesistate a modification of calculators.

This rule goes into effect Jan 1, 2011

Court Order

---

ALERT - AZ Superior Court Civil - Modifications to Rule 26(b)(5) affects standards not timing (eff. 1/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

The modifications to Rule 26(b)(5) effects standards not timing, and do not require a modification of the calculator.

This amendment ALIGNS RULE 26(b)(5), PERTAINING TO ADDING A NON-PARTY
AT FAULT, WITH THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN RULE 15 FOR
AMENDING A COMPLAINT TO ADD A NEW PARTY


effecive Jan 1, 2011

Court Order

---

ALERT - AZ Superior Court Civil - Modifications to Rule 6 (eff. 1/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

This change impacts the timing of deadlines calculated from the date of service (any possible difference between deadlines calculated forward in time could ONLY provide a day or two to respond, and will not shorten the period of time).

This change CONFORMS RULE 6(e), ARIZ. R. CIV. P., TO RULE 6(d), FED. R.
CIV. P., WITH RESPECT TO THE CALCULATION OF EXTRA TIME AFTER
SERVICE BY MAIL

ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2011.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Effective January 1, 2011, Rule 6(e) was amended to remove any doubt regarding how to add 5 days to a deadline: before extending the time to respond after service by mail or other means, you must first calculate the date on which the deadline would otherwise expire; then five days are added to this date. Intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are included in counting these added five days, but if the fifth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the last day to act is the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

Application of Rule 6(e) to a period that is EQUAL TO or GREATER than eleven days can be illustrated by a paper that is served by mailing and the prescribed period would otherwise expire on the thirtieth day, and the thirty-day period is a Saturday. Under Rule 6(a) the period expires on the next day that is not a Sunday or legal holiday. If the following Monday is a legal holiday, under Rule 6(a) the period expires on Tuesday. Five calendar days are then added-Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. As the fifth and final day falls on a Sunday, by operation of Rule 6(a), the fifth and final day to act is the following Monday. If Monday is a legal holiday, the next day that is not a legal holiday is the fifth and final day to act. If the period prescribed expires on a Wednesday, the five added calendar days are Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, which is the fifth and final day to act unless it is a legal holiday. If Monday is a legal holiday, the next day that is not a legal holiday is the fifth and final day to act.

Application of Rule 6(e) to a period that is LESS than eleven days can be illustrated by a paper that is served by mailing on a Wednesday. If ten days are allowed to respond, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded in determining when the period expires under Rule 6(a). If there is no legal holiday, the period expires on the Wednesday two weeks after the paper was mailed. The five added Rule 6(e) days are Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, which is the fifth and final day to act unless it is a legal holiday. If Monday is a legal holiday, the next day that is not a legal holiday is the final day to act.

Court Order

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - Summary of CRC amendments (eff 1/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

Extensive amendments to CRC go into effect Jan 1, 2011, but most of these deadlines update the standards in rules, and not applicable time frames. Highlights include:

* updating of language re electronic filing (but no deadlines other than deadline to object to order requiring party to file electronically)

* a new Chapter 4.5 (3.1545, et seq.) for EXPEDITED JURY TRIALS (extensive new deadline scheme leading up to trial, 3 hours for entire trial). LawToolBox will build a tool so that parties can track these deadlines, but these deadlines will not be included in the general civil litigation tool or county specific tools)


Adopted 10/20/2010, effective 1/1/2011.

Amendments to CRC (1/1/2011)

---

ALERT - CA Superior Court - Fresno County - rule changes (eff. 1/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

Amendments confined to record on appeal - no change to calculator is required

Click on link to review rule changes effective 1/1/2011

Local Rule Amendments

---

ALERT - CA Superior Court - Monterey County - local rule (eff. 1/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

There are significant rule changes impacting deadlines in the amendments that go into effect 1/1/2011.

proposed rule changes

---

ALERT - CA Superior Court - Santa Clara - local rule changes - civil (eff. 1/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

The local rule changes (civil) that go into eff 1/1/2011 do not require modification of deadline calculators.

rule changes

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - San Mateo - Local Rules Amended (eff 1/1/2011)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2011)

Revisions effective January 1, 2011
Cover Page-amended, Update Instructions – amended; Table of Contents; Summary of Changes-amended; Filing Instructions-amended; List of Effective Rules amended; Alphabetical Index amended;

The following Rules are Amended or Added:

Division IV – Rules 4.6 and 4.77.14 are amended to clarify calculation of days as “court days”;

Division V – Rule 5.13 B. 3. b) added “in person” attendance at Orientation; Rule 5.13 B 7 amended to add information on assignment of mediators by the Family Court Services division; Rule 5.13 B 9 is amended to add procedures for bringing complaints against a mediator.

Division II (Court Management) andf Division III (Civil Law and Motion) were NOT IMPACTED BY THIS RULE CHANGE and therefore, the LawToolBox calculator did not require modification.

---

ALERT - TX USDC WEST - Amendments to Local Rules (eff. 12/19/9)
(Posted Date: 12/19/2010)

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Upon majority vote of the district judges, Chief Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr. entered an order for the Court adopting two new local court rules (CV-6 and CR-45) and revising local rules CV-3(c)(1), CV-5(b)(1), CV-7(c), (d), (e) and (i), CV-12, CV-16 (d) and (e), CV-26(d), CV-33(a), CV-88(h), CR-12, CR-16(a)(3), CR-32(b)(1), CR-47(b), AT-7(f)(2),(7) and (g). Also revised are two appendices to the local rules; Appendix “B,” Scheduling Order, paragraph 4, and Appendix “C,” Rule 4(a),(b),(d) and (e)(2)(A). Revisions to local rules were required to ensure consistency in the manner in which time computations and deadlines are calculated, in view of recent amendments to the federal rules.

Court Notice of Court Website

---

ALERT - CO Court of Appeals - Proposed rule changes to CAR interlocutory appeals coming soon!
(Posted Date: 12/3/2010)

Proposed rule changes to CAR interlocutory appeals coming soon!

Proposed Rule Change

---

ALERT - TX USDC NORTH - Amendments to Local Rules 56.3 to 56.6 (eff 12/1/2010)
(Posted Date: 12/1/2010)

These rule changes do NOT require modifications to deadline calculator required.

This rule change was adopted to conform the local rules to the modifications impacting FRCP effective 12/1/2010. These rule changes do not impact the timing of anything related to summary judgment, but instead clarify the procedure for identifying issues appropriate for summary resolution, and how to oppose motions.

Special Order 2-76

---

ALERT - MT USDC - Amendments to local rules (eff. 12/1/2010)
(Posted Date: 12/1/2010)

Amendments to local rules primarily related to electronic filing were adopted and effective December 1, 2010.

This rule change did NOT require any modifications to the deadline calculators.

red-lined local rules

---

ALERT - WA USDC EAST - RULE CHANGE - FRCP Amendments (effective 12/1/10)
(Posted Date: 12/1/2010)

FRCP 26(b)(4): This rule is amended to provide, in part, work-product protection against discovery of draft expert disclosures and reports, and against communications between an attorney and the expert (except for compensation, data provided to the expert by the attorney, and assumptions that the attorney asked the expert to rely on).

FRCP 56: This rule is amended to clarify the procedures for presenting and contesting summary judgment, but it does not change any deadlines or the standards for deciding summary judgment motions. The timing provisions of former FRCP 56 - which permit defendant to file SJ motion at any time or a claimant to file 20 days after the action commences - are superseded (although the new rule allows a motion for SJ to be filed at the commencement of the action). The primary impact of this rule change is that citations to various provisions of Rule 56 in motions and response need to be carefully checked.

FRCP Amendments (eff 12/1/2010

---

ALERT - WA USDC WEST - RULE CHANGE - FRCP Amendments (effective 12/1/10)
(Posted Date: 12/1/2010)

FRCP 26(b)(4): This rule is amended to provide, in part, work-product protection against discovery of draft expert disclosures and reports, and against communications between an attorney and the expert (except for compensation, data provided to the expert by the attorney, and assumptions that the attorney asked the expert to rely on).

FRCP 56: This rule is amended to clarify the procedures for presenting and contesting summary judgment, but it does not change any deadlines or the standards for deciding summary judgment motions. The timing provisions of former FRCP 56 - which permit defendant to file SJ motion at any time or a claimant to file 20 days after the action commences - are superseded (although the new rule allows a motion for SJ to be filed at the commencement of the action). The primary impact of this rule change is that citations to various provisions of Rule 56 in motions and response need to be carefully checked.

FRCP Amendments (eff 12/1/2010

---

ALERT - CO USDC - USDC Local Rule Amendments (eff. 12/1/10)
(Posted Date: 12/1/2010)

USDC D Colo. - Standard Scheduling Order: This form has been modified to include references to new FRCP 26(a)(2) disclosure amendments.

USDC D Colo. - Standard Final Pretrial Order: This form has been amended to conform FRCP 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures and objections to the time frames set forth in federal rules. In other words, Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures are to be made 30 days before trial, and any objections thereto are to be made within 14 days after the Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures have been made or provided.

Other time frames modified in the local rules are too peripheral to the primary deadlines to be incorporated into the deadline calculators. However, it is worth noting that a requirement has been added that the removing party must file a current docket sheet (and separately file each pending motion, petition or related response) within 14 days of filing the notice of removal. D.C.COLO.LCivR 81.1(B).

D.C.Colo.LCivR (eff 12/1/2010)

---

ALERT - USDC - RULE CHANGE - FRCP Amendments (eff 12/1/10)
(Posted Date: 12/1/2010)

FRCP 26(b)(4): This rule is amended to provide work-product protection against discovery of draft expert disclosures and reports, and against communications between an attorney and the expert (except for compensation, data provided to the expert by the attorney, and assumptions that the attorney asked the expert to rely on).

FRCP 56: This rule is amended to clarify the procedures for presenting and contesting summary judgment, but it does not change any deadlines or the standards for deciding summary judgment motions. The timing provisions of former FRCP 56 - which permit defendant to file SJ motion at any time or a claimant to file 20 days after the action commences - are superseded (although the new rule allows a motion for SJ to be filed at the commencement of the action). The primary impact of this rule change is that citations to various provisions of Rule 56 in motions and response need to be carefully checked.

Red-lined FRCP (eff 12/1/2010)

---

ALERT - TX USDC EAST - Amendments to Local Rules (eff October 2010)
(Posted Date: 10/1/2010)

This rule change only impacts LR CV-63 re inability of a judge to proceed and does not require any modifications to the deadline calculator.

General Order 10-11

---

ALERT - WA King County - Amendments to Superior Court Local Rules (eff 9/1/2010)
(Posted Date: 9/1/2010)

In Washington state, King County has amended their Superior Court Local Rules. Here is a brief summary:

King County Superior Court Local Rules amendments go into effect Sept 1, 2010. Changes were adopted by a majority vote of King County Superior Court Judges on June
2010.

The amendments include changes to existing rules and adoption of rules previously adopted on an emergency basis.

Rules previously amended on an emergency basis effective 9/8/2009 are KCLCR 82, KCLCrR 5.1, KCLRALJ 2.6, 3.2, 7.1, 8.3, 9.2, 10.1, 10.2 and 12.1.

The rules amended in the normal rules cycle are KCLCR 4, 26, 37, 40, 40.1, KCLGR
15, 30 and KCLFLR 5.

The effective date of these rules is Sept 1, 2010 pursuant to GR 7.

Redlined amend (eff 9/1/2010)

---

ALERT - Colorado Work Comp - Request for DIME deadlines modified
(Posted Date: 9/1/2010)

A procedure has been amended to allow requesting party to request a SUMMARY DISCLOSURE FORM WC30, and to run a possible deadline to strike one physician name from the 3 physician name list provided by the division.

Rule 11-3 Amend: Req DIME

---

ALERT - WY State District - Order adopting 2010 rule changes to Rules 16, 26, 50, 54 and 77
(Posted Date: 4/12/2010)

The Wyoming Supreme court amended its Civil Rules to conform to the 2006 FRCP Amendments in (similarly numbered) Rules 26, 33, 34, 37 and 45 effective on July 1, 2008

Supreme Court Order - Apr 2010

---

ALERT - CO Court of Appeals - Notice Requirements Upon Motion to Withdraw Amended
(Posted Date: 4/5/2010)

The requirements for the representations that must be included in a motion to withdraw filed by a law firm were modified to include a requirement that "[i]f the client is not a natural person, that it must be represented by counsel in any appellate proceeding unless it is a closely held entity and first complies with section 13-1-127, C.R.S."

LawToolBox action: modified the wording of our "Motion to Withdraw" pleading to conform with the new requirements.

Amended CAR 5(b)

---

ALERT - TX USDC NORTH - Amendments to LR 3.3 & 81.1 (eff 3/10/2010)
(Posted Date: 3/10/2010)

No modification to deadline calculator required by these rule changes

Special Order 2-74

---

ALERT - MT District Civil - proposed amendments to MRCP (March 2010)
(Posted Date: 3/1/2010)

Comprehensive amendments to the MRCP have been proposed. Most of the modifications appear to update the language used, rather than the substance of the rules themselves. This set of proposed amendments may be characterized as stylistic changes.

No proposed effective date has been announced.

Proposed Rule Changes

---

ALERT - WY Federal USDC - LR (local rules) amended eff. March 2010
(Posted Date: 3/1/2010)

The current revision date for the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Distrrict of Wyoming went into effect March 1, 2010.

The following Local Rules were ipacted by these amendments:

4.1, 7.1, 26.1, 26.2, 30.1, 37.2, 43.1, 48.1, 51.1, 74.1, 77.1, 83.12.5

USDCLR (eff Mar 2010)

---

ALERT - TX USDC EAST - General Order 10-1 Amending Local Rule (eff. feb 2010)
(Posted Date: 2/18/2010)

Proposed Local Rule Amendments

Dated February 18, 2010
Proposed local rule amendments dated February 18, 2010 may be viewed here. Any public commentary regarding the rule amendments should be conveyed to U.S. District Clerk David Maland by the close of business March 12, 2010.

General Order 10-1

---

ALERT - CA State Superior - Amendments to Local Civil Rules Effective January 1, 2010
(Posted Date: 1/1/2010)

California Superior Courts Propose Amendments to Local Civil Rules Effective January 1, 2010.

The following California Superior Courts have posted proposed amendments to their local rules effective January 1, 2010:

•Alameda County
•Los Angeles County
•Orange County
•Riverside County
•San Bernardino County
•San Diego County
•San Mateo County
•Santa Clara County
•Ventura County

The changes to the local rules in the California Superior Courts will be effective January 1, 2010


Rule Changes

---

ALERT - CO USDC - Amendments to Local Rules (eff. 12/1/09)
(Posted Date: 12/1/2009)

The 12/01/2009 rule changes apply to all civil matters pending in USDC for the Disricvt of Colorado, regardless of when the matter was filed. See, D.C.COLO.LCivR 1.1(b-d).

Effective Date. These rules became effective on April 15, 2002 and are updated effective Dec. 1, 2009. D.C.COLO.LCivR 1.1(b).

Scope. These rules apply in all civil actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. D.C.COLO.LCivR 1.1(c)

Relationship to Prior Rules. [T]hese rules supersede all previous local rules. D.C.COLO.LCivR 1.1(d)

D.C.COLO.LCivR (eff 12/1/9)

---

ALERT - 10th Cir Court of Appeals - ECF Mandatory in 10th Circuit Ct of Appeals/New Deadlines (eff. 6/1/09)
(Posted Date: 6/1/2009)

PLEASE EMAIL TO ANYONE YOU THINK MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THESE RULE CHANGES



Video: 10th Circuit Toolset

---

ALERT - CO Court of Appeals - CAR 52 Amendments - Review on Cert - Time for Petitioning (eff 05/28/09)
(Posted Date: 5/28/2009)



RULE CHANGE 2009(11)

---

ALERT - CO Court of Appeals - Mandatory eBrief (eff 03/1/09)
(Posted Date: 3/1/2009)

---

ALERT - WA King County - Amendments to Superior Court Local Rules (eff 2008)
(Posted Date: 9/1/2008)

In Washington state, King County Superior Court issued new local rules applicable to civil matters in 2008. A few rule changes impacted the LawToolBox calculators.

Local Civil Rule 4 is especially worth review. What the court did was consolidate case management rules and rules relating to motions. It new refers to Local Rules (formerly LRs) as Local Civil Rules (LCRs). The new rules eliminate the Confirmation of Service rule (LR 4.1) and eliminate the reference from the Case Schedule. They make the Confirmation of Joinder a "plaintiff only" event and the court provides a new form. LCR 4.2. Deadlines for filing trial brief, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and jury instructions were added to the Case Schedule (T-1), and the rule was moved from LR 16 to LCR 4. LCR 7(b) relating to motions contains new scheduling information (when, where, how to request oral argument). Presentation of orders by mail moved from LR 54 to LCR 7(b).

2008 King County Amendments

---

ALERT - WY State District - Order adopting 2007 rule changes to Rules 5, 26, 30, 33, 34, 37, 40, 45, 56.1 & 77
(Posted Date: 10/15/2007)

This rule change modified many different rules, but prominent among the impacts of this rule change was a time frame for:

1) disclosing information under Rule 26(a)(1) within 30 days an answer due date, and

2) a time frame for disclosing expert reports 90 days before trial, and

3) a deadline for pretrial discloure of witnesses, depo excerpts & exhibits.

Supreme Court Order - Oct 2007

---