LawToolbox.com Site Navigation Training Support Contact Us Login

Call: 1-888-958-6657

ALERTS, NOTICES & BLOG!


Sign Up to try the patented LawToolBox 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 and Time Matters.


To subscribe to our posts follow our BLOG and/or RULE CHANGE ALERTS on twitter       

                         


BLOG - Visit the Microsoft / LawToolBox Booth (329) at ALATechshow in Toronto 5/20 - 5/22!
(Posted Date: 5/16/2014)

We are excited to showcase our growing partnership with Microsoft at the ALATechshow next week in Tronto, and if you are attending we hope you will visit Microsoft and LawTooBox at booth #329.

The Microsoft Store in Toronto will be showcasing Office 365 for Legal, Windows phones and more. LawToolBox will be featuring their Office 365 Court Deadline App and Windows 8 App. Ask us for a sticker to complete your Bingo card, and you'll be entered into a drawing for a Coach Purse!

We can't wait to see you there!





BLOG - LawToolBox Will Showcase its New Legal App for Office 365 & Windows 8 at ALA May 19-22, 2014
(Posted Date: 5/6/2014)

Checkout the LawToolBox Court Deadline App for Office 365/2013 that takes advantage of the new app architecture that Microsoft has developed. When an email is viewed in Outlook 2013 (on a user’s laptop) or in Outlook 365 (in the cloud) an email app bar appears displaying email apps that have been added, and from their you can access all the deadline reports you'll ever need!

Also checkout our Court Deadline App for Windows 8.1. When you install this app as a new tile on your Windows 8.1 devices (including Surfaces, laptops, desktops, phones, etc.) an attorney or paralegal can access their case deadlines from anywhere, anytime!



ALA Schedule



BLOG - LawToolBox showcases growing partnership with Microsoft at LegalTech and ABATechshow with Office365 LegalApp via @LXBN
(Posted Date: 4/4/2014)

Check out the Lexblog article on LawToolBox: LawToolBox.com Exhibits with Microsoft at LegalTech, Showcases Office 365 Product







BLOG - LawToolBox included in Bob Ambrogi's Top 10 Product Announcements at ABA Techshow 2014!
(Posted Date: 3/31/2014)

In his "Top 10 Product Announcments at ABA Techshow" Bob Ambrogi Includes LawToolBox in with announcements by some great companies! Mr. Ambrogi highlights our two new legal apps that integrate its deadlines within Outlook 2013, Outlook 365, and Windows 8.1. The LawToolBox Court Deadline Outlook app allows users to retrieve and email deadline charts for any of their cases; generate and email date-range reports of upcoming deadlines by attorney, practice area or group calendar; and import deadlines into their Outlook calendar. The Windows app lets users access their case deadline charts from any Windows 8.1 device.

Ambrogi Top 10 @ ABA Techshow



BLOG - PRESS RELEASE: Court Deadline Apps in both Office & Windows stores!
(Posted Date: 3/25/2014)

The LawToolBox Court Deadline App for Windows 8.1 is live in the Windows Store, just in time to debut it at the ABA Techshow in Chicago (3/27-28/2014). Court Deadline App in Windows Store

We are excited to showcase our growing partnership with Microsoft at ABA Techshow and hope you will visit the Microsoft and LawTooBox Booths (#322/321).

Press Release



BLOG - LawToolBox submitted a Court Deadline App for Windows 8 just as the Windows Store Hits 150K milestone
(Posted Date: 3/23/2014)

On Friday, 3/21/14, the Windows Store reached 150,000 apps, almost a year and a half after the release of Windows 8. On Sunday, 3/23/14, LawToolBox submitted a Court Deadline App for Windows 8.1, just in time to debut it at the ABA Techshow in Chicago (3/27-28/2014) Rest assured we will let you know when it's live on the Windows Store!!


Windows Store Hits 150K Apps



BLOG - Don't miss the Office365 v Google Apps Session at ABATechshow (3/27, 10:15am)
(Posted Date: 3/20/2014)

Office 365 v Google Apps (Thursday, March 27, 2014, 10:15am-11:15am): Microsoft's new Office 365 offering threatens to revolutionize the way that attorneys and other professionals create and collaborate on documents. Google Apps have made collaboration transparent and easy. Learn from our panel of experts how these two titans of cloud-based productivity square up against one another in a first TECHSHOW cloud software deathmatch. In the end, "there can be only one."

@TabletLawyer @MarkRosch @jeffrey_taylor

ABA Techshow Schedule



BLOG - Visit the Microsoft / LawToolBox Booth (322/321) at ABATechshow in Chicago 3/27/14-3/28/14
(Posted Date: 3/19/2014)

The Microsoft Store will be showcasing Office 365 for Legal, Surfaces and more. LawToolBox will be featuring our new Court Deadline App for Outlook 365 available on Office.com/store. Members from the Microsoft legal team will be at the booth to answer questions about how they use Microsoft products.


ABATechshow Schedule



BLOG - Check out the story on LTN re our Court Deadline app for Outlook 365!
(Posted Date: 2/13/2014)

New court app for Office 365 and Office 2013 can view deadline information and reports by associate, client or firm without leaving the Outlook interface.

LTN Law Technology News 2/6/14



BLOG - LexisNexis LexBlog Interview with Jack Grow re Court Deadline App for Office 365
(Posted Date: 2/11/2014)

LawToolBox.com President & CEO Jack Grow took the time to speak with us as part of our ongoing coverage of LegalTech New York 2014 and managed to share with us how his company came to exhibit with Microsoft at the event. They had exciting news for LegalTech, as they were rolling out their new Court Deadline App for Office 365.



LexBlog Post



BLOG - Our New Court Deadline App for Outlook 365/2013 is Like Having a Mini LawToolBox in your Inbox!
(Posted Date: 2/3/2014)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Litigators Use LawToolBox Court Deadline App for Office 365 & 2013
to View Firm Deadline Reports from their Outlook Inbox

DENVER (January 30, 2014) – LawToolBox, a centralized deadline management system in the cloud, calculates state and federal court deadlines based on rules of procedure for each court. LawToolBox has offered a deadline management system in the cloud since the late 1990s and court deadlines for Outlook since 2002. But now busy litigators can use the new LawToolBox Court Deadline App for Office 365 and 2013 to view deadline reports by associate, client or firm without ever leaving their Outlook Inbox. Further, Outlook 365 subscribers can also use the App to do an “instant import” of LawToolBox deadlines to their Outlook calendar.

Even before a law firm has upgraded to the powerful Office 365 platform, firms of all sizes can use LawToolBox to calculate deadlines, access reports in the cloud by case, attorney or department. And if the firm uses a “hosted” or “on premise” Exchange with 2003+ versions of Outlook, they can install an enterprise sync add-in for Outlook on a single computer in the firm to automatically synchronize LawToolBox deadlines to potentially hundreds of Outlook calendars every 15 to 30 minutes. "Because LawToolBox automatically synchronizes deadlines to Outlook and those deadlines are pushed to my mobile device, I can look at my deadlines from anywhere” says attorney Troy Rackham, Director at Fennemore Craig, P.C. in Denver, Colorado.

When the existing LawToolBox product is combined with the new LawToolBox App for Outlook 365 and 2013, the user experience becomes even more seamless and easy to use. As LawToolBox users upgrade or move to Outlook 2013 or 365, they can continue to use the same familiar Office tools that they are used to, but now these tools can be enhanced by legal specific apps like the new LawToolBox Court Deadline App on Office.com/store. Once the app has been linked to LawToolBox, with just a few clicks from inside their Outlook Inbox, a litigator or support staff can view their LawToolBox deadline reports by case, attorney or firm. The combination of LawToolBox court deadlines, and the LawToolBox App for Outlook 365, provides all the users involved in a lawsuit (e.g., attorneys, paralegals and co-counsel) with a “single” repository of deadlines, real-time, online, without ever having to leave their Outlook Inbox and thereby increasing awareness and reducing the risk of missed deadlines.

“While there are many innovative products in the legal market, Microsoft Office is almost always the backbone of most law firms. When we first saw apps for Outlook 365, we felt that Microsoft had raised the bar on delivering cloud based solutions to businesses, and that the Microsoft App Store could have a profound impact on the ability of companies like ours to deliver innovative solutions to our customers. The Microsoft Partner Program provided great documentation and tools that guided us through the process, and their support structure was outstanding. We discovered that the process of building an email app was not very different from building a website, and it was surprisingly easy once we jumped in and got our feet wet.” Says Jack Grow, President of LawToolBox.

LawToolBox docketing can be centralized for firms that want to limit access to a small group, and the simple user interface allows anyone to get trained in minutes. LawToolBox has been monitoring and pushing rule-changes to law firms and legal departments online for over 16 years so litigators can focus their time on the substantive issues that impact the outcome of their case.

For typical law firms with more than a couple lawsuits at any given time, the most cost-effective pricing LawToolBox offers for is a subscription model based on a ONE-TIME “per lawsuit” fee that law firms then pass through to their clients (which means law firms typically pay nothing for the online deadlines, reminders and reports, and may qualify for significant discounts on their malpractice premiums). Large firms or attorneys with a high volume can request custom quotes. Sync software is available from a third-party provider for a nominal monthly fee based on the number of calendars to which deadlines are synchronizing.

Contact:
Jack Grow
President and CEO
www.lawtoolbox.com
jbg@lawtoolbox.com
Tel: 303-759-3572

LawToolBox Press Release



ALERT - CA State Superior Court- Rule Changes (eff. 1/1/14)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2014)

CRC 3.670 (modified to permit parties to appear by telephone at all conference except those where personal appearance is required under section e).

CRC 3.670(d)(1) ("applicants seeking an ex parte order may appear by telephone provided that the moving papers have been filed and a proposed order submitted by at least 10:00 a.m. two court days before the ex parte appearance"). See also, CRC 3.670(h)(3)(B) ("File and serve the papers in such a way that they will be received by the court and all parties by no later than 10:00 a.m. two court days before the ex parte appearance;"). THIS POSSIBLE DEADLINE HAS NOT BEEN ADDED TO THE MOTION CALCULATOR BECAUSE THIS ONLY APPLIES TO EXPARTE APPLICATIONS FOR WHICH THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE WOULD NOT TYPICALLY APPLY. However, this deadline was modified on the repeat calculator for FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES.

Changes to rules involving recycled paper, tribal courts, juvenile matters, procedure for sealing confidential materials, new terms re signatures, are not relevant to existing calculators available through LawToolBox.

CRC Rule Changes



ALERT - CA State Superior - San Bernardino - Rule changed effective 1/1/14
(Posted Date: 1/1/2014)

LR 329 is modified to clarify court reporter policy - NO MODIFICATION to CALCULATORS was required.

LR 411.1 ( The provision "Jury fees shall be paid prior to the date first set for a trial setting conference" that was effective May 6, 2013 was stricken in its entirety).

LR (eff 1-1-14)



ALERT - CA State Superior - SF - Local Rule Change re motions (eff. 1-1-14)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2014)

SFLR 8.2 Law and Motion Calendar.

A. Hearing.

1. Time of Hearing. All limited and unlimited jurisdiction matters are heard in Department 302 at 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday. The time may be changed by the Judge presiding in the Law and Motion Department, and notice of these hearings will be published in the official legal newspapers and posted in the Civic Center Courthouse.

2. Selection of Date.

a. Parties must schedule and notice hearings within the time limits
provided by law, e.g., CCP § 1005. Parties should confer with all
other parties before scheduling and noticing a hearing.

b. Before filing a motion, the moving party must obtain a hearing
date and reservation number from the Court by sending an email to
calendar302@sftc.org. If a litigant does not have an email address,
the litigant may call the court at: (415) 551-3688 between 8:00
a.m. and 12:00 non to obtain a hearing date. (Request submitted
after 12:00 noon may be processed the next business day.)
c. After obtaining a hearing date, the moving party must
electronically file the motion within 24 hours. Parties excluded
from the requirements of LRSF 2.10 must file the motion in Room
103. After filing, the moving party must bring a courtesy copy of
the filing to Department 302. If a motion challenges the sufficiency
of a pleading already on file, the moving party must also supply a
courtesy copy of that pleading. Courtesy copies of all subsequent
filings relating to the motion must be delivered to Department 302.
See LRSF 2.6 (B) and (C).

SFLR eff 1-1-14



ALERT - Emergency Rule Change
(Posted Date: 1/1/2014)

New rules adopted re authentication of electronic documents

LGR 30



ALERT - Rule changes effective JAN 2014
(Posted Date: 1/1/2014)

The following amendments were incorporated into LawToolBox:

Rule 1.480(b)(Service of motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict > deadline change from 10 days after return of verdict to 15 day).

Rule 1.530(b) (Service of a motion for new trial or for rehearing changed from 10 days after return of verdict in a jury action or the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action to 15 days).

Rule 1.530(d) (Order of rehearing or new trial on court’s initiative changed from 10 days after entry of judgment or within the time of ruling on a timely motion for rehearing or a new trial may by the party to 15 days).

RULE CHANGE SUMMARY



ALERT - CO District (Civil) - eFiling references changed to INTEGRATED COLORADO COURTS E-FILING SYSTEM
(Posted Date: 12/31/2013)

The Court authorized service provider for the program is NO LONGER

Instead pleadings are now filed in the THE INTEGRATED COLORADO COURTS E-FILING SYSTEM (WWW.JBITS.COURTS.STATE.CO.US/ICCES/).





ALERT - NM District Court - NMRCP 1-059 Rule Change (eff 12/31/13)
(Posted Date: 12/18/2013)

Modifications to NMRCP 1-059 changed deadlines, but at this time, LawToolBox does not track any post trial deadlines for the venue, so no modifications to the calculator were made at this time.

Rule Change



ALERT - AZ Superior Court - Rule Changes effective Jan 1, 2014
(Posted Date: 12/11/2013)

ARCP 7.1(g) Deadline added - Latest date to file stipulation re extension of time to reply without court approval (5 court days before hearing). ("No extension shall be effective without court approval if it purports to make a reply or other final memorandum due less than five days before a hearing or oral argument date previously set by the court, or if the notice of that extension is filed after the memorandum is due. No order is necessary to obtain an extension under this subsection, and the extension shall be effective upon filing, unless and until the court disapproves the change.")

ARCP 15(a)(1) Wording change from "within twenty-one days" to "no later than twenty-one days". No modification made to deadline.



Rule Change Eff. 1/1/2014



ALERT - AZ USDC - Amendments to Local Rules (eff 12/1/2013)
(Posted Date: 12/11/2013)

LRCiv 54.2 - ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND RELATED NON-TAXABLE EXPENSES. Amendment leaves intact the deadline for filing a motion for attorneys’ fees and non-taxable expenses not sought against the United States as 14 days after the entry of judgment; All other requirements and timelines are now subject to the conditions set forth in LRCiv 7.2.

Local Rules (eff 12/1/13)



ALERT - CO USDC (Civil) - Rule changes effective Dec 1, 2013
(Posted Date: 12/1/2013)

Reference Numbers re-styled. Local rule reference numbers have been conformed to a more standard format, e.g., 10(a)(1)(A).

D.C.COLO.LCivR 45.1. Before the Dec 1 transition this deadline was calculated as 3 court days before trial, after the amendment this deadline was 3 calendar days before trial. This time frame was changed from 48 hours to 7 days pursuant to local rule changes effective December 1, 2013.

Red-lined Amendments



ALERT - 10th Cir Court of Appeals - Amendments (LR eff 12/1/13 & FRAP eff 1/1/14)
(Posted Date: 12/1/2013)

FRAP 28 & 28.1.

Practitioners should take special note of the second category of
changes, which are to Federal Rules 28 and 28.1. Both rules address briefing
requirements (noting Rule 28.1 applies to cross appeals). The changes allow parties to
combine a statement of the case and the factual recitation for the appeal into a
single section. The rule effective prior to these rule changes required separate sections.

10th Cir. R. 10.3(D)(5)

This rule previously required parties to include trial exhibits in a separate
“addendum” if they were returned to the parties following the district court
proceedings. The rule now allows those exhibits to be included in either the
appendix or as a supplement to the record on appeal, as applicable to the
proceeding.

See, 2014 Memorandum on Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Tenth Cir. Rules
Effective Dec. 1, 2013 and Jan. 1, 2014
.

Red-Lined changes



ALERT - CO District (Civil) - New Notice Reqd on Summons
(Posted Date: 10/10/2013)

Here are the new words required in a summons:

WARNING: A VALID SUMMONS MAY BE ISSUED BY A LAWYER AND IT NEED NOT CONTAIN A COURT CASE NUMBER, THE SIGNATURE OF A COURT OFFICER, OR A COURT SEAL. THE PLAINTIFF HAS 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE THIS SUMMONS WAS SERVED ON YOU TO FILE THE CASE WITH THE COURT. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING THE COURT TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE CASE HAS BEEN FILED AND OBTAIN THE CASE NUMBER. IF THE PLAINTIFF FILES THE CASE WITHIN THIS TIME, THEN YOU MUST RESPOND AS EXPLAINED IN THIS SUMMONS. IF THE PLAINTIFF FILES MORE THAN 14 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE SUMMONS WAS SERVED ON YOU, THE CASE MAY BE DISMISSED UPON MOTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SEEK ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM THE PLAINTIFF.

Form 1 - Update



ALERT - CO federal - Government Shutdown Will not effect Deadlines thru Oct 1, 2013
(Posted Date: 10/1/2013)

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that during the government shutdown beginning October 1, 2013, the federal Judiciary will remain open for business for approximately 10 business days. On or around October 15, 2013, the Judiciary will reassess its situation and provide further guidance. All proceedings and deadlines remain in effect as scheduled, unless otherwise advised. Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) will remain in operation for the electronic filing of documents with courts.

Gov Shutdown Info



ALERT - CO District (Civil) - 63 Day Deadline to SERVE complaint after action commenced by FILING
(Posted Date: 9/5/2013)

CRCP 4(m) - Amended Eff. Sept 5, 2013 ("IF A DEFENDANT IS NOT SERVED WITHIN 63 DAYS (NINE WEEKS) AFTER THE COMPLAINT IS FILED, THE COURT--ON MOTION OR ON ITS OWN AFTER NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF--SHALL DISMISS THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT OR ORDER THAT SERVICE BE MADE WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME. BUT IF THE PLAINTIFF SHOWS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE, THE COURT SHALL EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE FOR AN APPROPRIATE PERIOD. THIS SUBDIVISION (m) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY UNDER RULE 4(d).") (CRCP 4(m) amended to add this deadline, effective Sept 5, 2013).

See also, Dillingham v. Greeley Publishing Co., 701 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1985) (complaint and summons are not served within a "reasonable" period of time, the action is subject to dismissal), and compare with Oversole v. Manci, ___ P.3d ___, No. 09CA0147 (Co App. 2009) ("fifteen-month period from the date of the filing of the complaint to the date of the dismissal order was not necessarily unreasonable" where defendant was a marine stationed overseas and plaintiff was making diligent efforts through the Marine Locator office to serve defendant).


CRCP 4(m) - eff Sept 5, 2013



ALERT - King County Superior Court Local Rule amendments eff. Sept 2, 2013
(Posted Date: 9/2/2013)

King County Superior Court Local Rule amendments are effective September 2, 2013, pursuant to GR 7. Changes were adopted by a majority vote of the King County Superior Court Judges on June 27, 2013. The amendments include changes to existing rules and adoption of rules previously adopted on an emergency bases

KCLCR (eff. Sept 2013)



ALERT - Amendments to wording of Oath
(Posted Date: 8/28/2013)

no modification of calculator was required.

Rule Change



BLOG - Our NEW plugin for Outlook gives users ONE-CLICK ACCESS to their LawToolBox!
(Posted Date: 8/25/2013)

As one of our customers said: "This new app for outlook is great. Now my attorneys have a button in their Outlook so that with one click they can easily view their case deadline charts. Thanks!"

You can down this plugin from our homepage, or the "LTB Outlook Plugin" link below.

LTB Plugin for Outlook



ALERT - CA Stat Superior - San Bernardino - Rule changes (May & July 2013)
(Posted Date: 7/1/2013)

Amendments were made to LR 319, 320, 400, 402, 408, 409, 410, 411, 411.1, 411.2, 413 and 512. Appropriate modifications to calculators were incorporated herein.

LR with effective dates



BLOG - LJN Legal Tech Newsletter (May 2013)
(Posted Date: 5/7/2013)

Many thanks to Mr. Troy Rackham for the case study he wrote on the LawToolBox deadline management system which was published in this months Legal Tech Newsletter:

Mr Rackham concludes: "LawToolBox gives me confidence in my deadline reports. I typically only have to do a first level of review, so I devote less time to worrying about deadlines or making sure that they were calculated accurately. I spend less time worrying whether my staff is doing what they need to do. In fact, I rely on the staff less for deadlines than I rely on the automation. This frees up my staff to do other work that is important to winning on the substantive issue of my cases."


See, Rackham T., Using an Online Deadline Management System to Reduce Risk, LJN Legal Tech Newsletter at 5-6 (May 1, 2013), reprinted below with permission.

LJN Legal Tech Newsletter May



BLOG - Bob Ambrogi Says LawToolBox Rules-Based Calculators for Court Deadlines is Worth Investigating!
(Posted Date: 4/30/2013)

Bob Ambrogi published an in-depth review of the LawToolBox rules-based calculators for court deadlines:

"For lawyers who are involved in litigation, a deadline calculator does more than help you sleep at night. It also helps you avoid malpractice and, in many cases, save on the cost of your malpractice premium.... With its per-case pricing, cloud accessibility, and tight integration with Outlook, LawToolBox is worth investigating. The company offers a free trial or you can view some of its video tutorials to get a better sense of how it works."



Robert Ambrogi LawSites



ALERT - UT District - URCP Amendments effective 4-1-2013
(Posted Date: 4/1/2013)

URCP 5(f-g) (requiring legal documents to include signed certificate of service, and permitting court to serve papers by email) (no deadline change required).

URCP 10(a)(4) (requiring party to include the Rule 26 discovery tier in the caption of pleadinga) (requiring every party asserting claims - not just the plaintiff - to include completed civil cover sheet) (add civil cover sheet requirement to deadline to file counter, cross and 3d party claims).

URCP 11 (d) - language that excluded discovery from rule 11 sanctions eliminated.

URCP 26 - language that required parties to "provide" or "make" was changed to "serve"(this requires word changes to LawToolBox deadlines). Further, the deadline for plaintiff to serve initial disclosures was changed from 14 days after fst answer was served to 14 days after first answer was FILED. See URCP 26(a)(2)(A). The deadline for defendant to provide initial disclosures was changed from the LATER OF either 28 days after plaintiffs disclosures or defendants appearance, to the LATER OF either 42 days after the first answer to complainty was filed or 28 days after defendants appearance. See, URCP 26(a)(2)(B). A bunch of deadlines relating to rebuttal experts were created in a new URCP (a)(4)(C)(iii).

URCP 26.2 was amended to limit the purposes for which SSN and HICN disclosures under this section may be used (no deadline change required).

URCP 37 was modified, but no deadline changes were required.

URCP 105 - modifications to waiting time periof in domestic relations matters was amended, but not relevan to the LawToolBox general civil litigation calculator.

CJA 04-0503 (adopted July 1, 2012, effective April 1, 2013). Mandatory electronic filing. New. Requires that documents in district court civil cases, excluding probate cases, be filed electronically effective April 1, 2013. Probate cases to be filed electronically effective July 1, 2013. Provides for exceptions. Requires modification to mail rule toggle (3 days are added in Utah only for service by MAIL pursuant to URCP 6).



Published Rules Changes



ALERT - UT district - Amendment to URCP 62
(Posted Date: 3/13/2013)

URCP 62 was modified to elaborate on postig municpal bonds (no modifcations to deadlines were required).

Amendment to URCP 68



BLOG - Law Technology News Features LawToolBox in its Litigation Support Column
(Posted Date: 2/11/2013)

Robyn Weisman, a freelance writer based in California, wrote this article for Law Technology News.

LTN Litigation Support 2/11/13



ALERT - CO Divorce - Rule Change that Rebuttal Report Not Due before 5 Weeks before Hearing
(Posted Date: 2/8/2013)

CRCP 16.2(g)(5) modified to state that the EARLIEST date expert rebuttal report can be required to be provided (if initial report is served early the rebuttal report shall not be required sooner than 35 days [5 weeks] before the hearing).

CRCP Amendments Effective Feb 8 2013. this deadline was added by rule change issued without notice, and effective Feb. 8, 2013.

Rule Change



ALERT - CA USDC South - Amendment of Local Rules in Patent Cases
(Posted Date: 2/8/2013)

Because LawToolBox does not track any deadlines related to patent litigation, none of these amendments required modification to the calculators.

General Order No 625



BLOG - Law Technology News Article - Court Deadline Calculator Adds Customized Calendars, Templates
(Posted Date: 2/6/2013)

Its always nice to get noticed! LawTooBox gets some good press at LegalTech NYC 2013

LTN Article (2/6/13)



BLOG - LexBlog Interviews LawToolBox at LegalTech (New York City, January 30, 2013)
(Posted Date: 1/30/2013)

If you know a law firm at #LTNY that is still entering deadlines by hand, send them to talk to us at booth 1318.



LexBlog Interviews LawToolBox



BLOG - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - LawToolBox Clients Reduce Risk by Customizing Deadlines
(Posted Date: 1/11/2013)

In preparation for LegalTech New York 2013 (Jan 29-31) we are excited to publish the press release below which covers new functionality for firms using our proprietary and nationwide court deadlines database. The new product feature allows law firms to customize our court rule-sets by overlaying their own deadline templates. If you are coming to LegalTech NY, come visit us at BOOTH 1318!

***********

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LawToolBox Clients Reduce Risk by Customizing Court Deadline Rule-Sets

National firms sync LawToolBox deadlines to Outlook, small firms sync to Google,
and case management providers can resell deadlines through API


DENVER (January 11, 2013) – LawToolBox, a software as a service (SaaS) calculates court deadlines based on rules of procedure, and makes their court rule-sets customizable. Attorneys have been able to use LawToolBox to calculate their deadlines since the late 90’s, but now they can customize these rule-sets by adding their own deadline calculators and by setting defaults to automatically omit the rule-based deadlines they don’t need. This new flexibility in deadline management gives law firms, ranging in size from solo practices to national law firms, deadlines tailored to their practice area which reduces risk.

“Our customers have always been able to edit our court deadlines to reflect a case management order for a case, but now they can create a deadline template to be used over and over to consistently calculate deadlines for similar cases.” said Jack Grow, President of LawToolBox. For example, LawToolBox users can create mini-calculators for a judge’s standard scheduling order, an insurance adjusters status updates, a real estate attorneys transactional deadlines, and other reminders for unique practices.

As deadlines are calculated LawToolBox records who added or edited what deadline and when, and then seamlessly synchronizes these deadlines to Outlook, Google, Time Matters and others every 15 minutes based on the format and reminder preferences that each user has selected. For example, one user for a case might get a reminder on their calendar on the “day of deadline”, 3 days before the deadline, and 14 days before; while another user on the same case might choose to get their deadlines in their Task list.

LawToolBox has been monitoring and pushing rule-changes online for over 15 years, so customers don’t need to wait for a software update or re-import deadlines. Instead, deadlines for cases impacted by the rule change are automatically updated and synchronized to each user’s calendar or task list. “During the last rule change, our law firm experienced a painless transition thanks to LawToolBox, while other legal professionals were scrambling to figure out the new deadlines” said Dennis Knight of the Harris Law firm.

While LawToolBox docketing can be centralized for firms that want to limit access to a small group, the simple user interface allows anyone to get trained in minutes. “We offer initial training for free which typically takes less than 20 minutes, and our tools are so easy to use most users can start customizing deadlines on the same day they log on to our website” says Jack Grow. Case Study
Rule-based deadlines are charged a ONE-TIME “per lawsuit” fee that law firms then pass through to their clients (which means law firms typically pay nothing for the online deadlines, reminders and reports, and may qualify for significant discounts on their malpractice premiums). Sync software is available for a nominal monthly fee based on the number of calendars to whom deadlines are synchronizing. This pricing model provides a less expensive alternative to Compulaw or Deadlines.com.

LawToolBox patented deadline management system has been methodically building a loyal customer base from across the country for over a decade. The LawToolBox cutting edge approach to managing and reporting deadlines, individualized sync preferences for Outlook and Google, combined with the flexibility to customize deadline rules sets has opened an exciting and untapped marketplace.

Contact:

Jack Grow, President and CEO
www.lawtoolbox.com
jbg@lawtoolbox.com
303-759-3572





ALERT - CO District Civil - CRCP 45 repealed and replaced effective Jan 1 2013
(Posted Date: 1/1/2013)

CRCP 45 Repealed and Readopted by the Court, En Banc, October 18, 2012, effective January 1, 2013.

Rule changes



ALERT - AZ Superior Court - Rule Changes effective Jan 1, 2013
(Posted Date: 1/1/2013)

Rule 4.1 amended to re-word who is served when governmnet is a defendant (no deadlines changed).

Rule 5.1 and 11 amended to facilitate short-term or limited representation of indigent or working poor (no changes to deadlines other than client has 10 days to object to motion to withdraw).

Amendments deleting Rule 30(h), Rules of Civil Procedure re: depositions in foreign jurisdicitons formerly required filing a dummy complaint, amending Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure, and promulgating Rule 45.1, Rules of Civil Procedurere: procedures for out-of-state depositions and production of discoverable materials conforming to Uniform Foreign Depositions Act (No deadlines changed).

Order amending Rules 4(d) & 4(e), Rules of Civil Procedure (changes “registered” private process server to “certified” private process server and moves qualifications for certification from the rule to the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration) (No deadlines changed).

Order deleting Rule 31(c), Rules of Civil Procedure (deletes requirement for filing of depositions upon written questions) (No deadlines changed).

DEADLINES MODIFIED - Amendments abrogated Rule 16(g)(2) (The Parties’ Duty to Consider ADR, and to Confer and Report) and Rule 84, Form 3 (Joint Alternative Dispute Resolution Statement to the Court). This amendment eliminated (i) the requirement to confer re ADR within 90 days first appearance of a defendant, and (ii) the requirement to have a settlement conference and inform the court of results of the meeting within 30 days of the parties' conference).

FAMILY LAW - Order amending Rule 55(a), Rules of Civil Procedure & Rule 44, Rules of Family Law Proc (clarifying that acceptance of application for entry of default constitues the date of entry of default).

Order amending Rule 8(c), Rules of Civil Procedure (removing “discharge of bankruptcy” as defense) (No deadlines changed).

DEADLINES MODIFIED - Order amending Rule 56, Rules of Civil Procedure (conform to Rules of Fed Civil Procedure and address ambiguities relating to discovery/deposition requests).

Order amending Rule 53(b)(3), Rules of Civil Procedure (special master’s conflict affidavit)



Amendments eff 1/1/13



ALERT - CO Appeals - Appellate deadlines due on Dec 17 & 18 extended to Dec 19, 2012
(Posted Date: 12/10/2012)

The Colorado Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court Library and Office of the State Court Administrator will move from the Denver Newspaper Agency Building to the new Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center on Dec. 15 and 16, 2012.

The courts will close at noon Friday, Dec. 14, 2012, and will reopen in the Judicial Center (2 East 14th Avenue) at 8:00 a.m., Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2012. The library closed to the public on Friday, Nov. 23, 2012, and will reopen on Dec. 19, 2012. The Office of the State Court Administrator will close on Friday, Dec. 14, 2012, and will reopen in the Judicial Office Tower (1300 Broadway) on Monday, Dec. 17, 2012.

Any deadlines for filings in either the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals on Dec. 17 and 18, 2012, are automatically extended to Dec. 19, 2012.

More info



BLOG - LawToolBox Deadlines Automatically Sync Every 15 Minutes!
(Posted Date: 12/7/2012)

As deadlines are calculated LawToolBox records who added or edited what deadline and when, and then seamlessly synchronizes these deadlines to Outlook, Google, Time Matters and others every 15 minutes based on the format and reminder preferences that each user has selected. For example, one user for a case might get a reminder on their calendar on the “day of deadline”, 3 days before the deadline, and 14 days before; while another user on the same case might choose to get their deadlines in their Task list.

On attorney noted "I'd pay the per case fee just to remove the deadlines from my Outlook when a trial gets continued." Another user noted that just calculating one set of deadlines and syncing them into Time Matters saved her an hour in every single case!

When rules change, our clients don’t need to wait for a software update or delete and re-import deadlines; instead LawToolBox deadlines are automatically updated real-time and online.

Info - Sync to Calendar



ALERT - CO USDC Civil - Minor changes to local rules
(Posted Date: 12/1/2012)

Changes primarily empower court to undertake pilot projects,to change reference to Appendices from "Appendix xxx" to an URL (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx), and expand on adminstrative closing of cases (see, D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2).

LR eff 12-1-12 (red-lined)



ALERT - UT District - URCP 25 (substitution of parties) & URCP 83 (vexatious litigants)
(Posted Date: 11/1/2012)

URCP 25 was amended to require that the moving party shall serve the motion together with the notice of hearing (LawToolBox does not track deadlines related to substitution of parties upon death, so no modifications to calculator were required).

URCP 83 was created to etablish standards and procedures for declaring a person to be a vexatious litigant. Establishes management of cases involving vexatious litigants (LawToolBox does not track deadlines related to vexatious litigants, so no modifications to calculator were required).


Rule Changes eff 11-1-12



ALERT - WY State District - WRCP 3.1 amended to require civil action cover sheet
(Posted Date: 11/1/2012)

W 3.1(a) ("Civil Cover Sheet. Every complaint or other document initiating a civil action shall be accompanied by a completed civil cover sheet form available on the Court’s website or from the Clerk of Court. This requirement is solely for administrative purposes and has no legal effect in the action. If the complaint or other document is filed without a completed civil cover sheet, the Clerk of Court shall at the time of filing give notice of the omission to the party filing the document. If, after notice of the omission the coversheet is not filed within 11 calendar days, the court may impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorney or party filing the complaint or other document. ").

Order adopting Rule 3.1



FAQ - CO District (CAPP) - Excerpts from FAQ posted by court
(Posted Date: 7/17/2012)

16. Is the time for filing an answer shortened if a plaintiff files the initial disclosure statement along with the complaint (or shortly thereafter) but does not immediately serve the defendant?

Rule 3.2 requires an answer within 21 days after the plaintiff’s initial disclosure statement is filed. However, if the defendant is not served until after the filing of the initial disclosure statement, the judges are generally allowing 21 days from the date of service to file an answer. Defendants in this position should immediately contact the court to ensure the provision of sufficient time.

* * *

24. What happens with respect to Rule 6.1 if multiple defendants file answers at different times?

Because each party presents different preservation issues, and because these issues ought to be addressed at the earliest point possible, the parties need to meet and confer after each defendant answers (“an answer”). Depending upon the number of parties and the timing of their answers, multiple conferences may be required.

25. The Initial Case Management Conference takes place “no later than 49 days after the answer and responsive pleading are filed.” What if multiple defendants file answers at different times?

Because the comprehensive Initial Case Management Conference shapes the litigation process in accordance with the specific needs of the case, it is intended to take place after the pleading and disclosure phase is complete. Accordingly, the conference should be scheduled within 49 days after the last answer is filed (“the answer”). In most of the Pilot Project court locations, a new Delay Reduction Order requires the plaintiff to serve a Notice to Set the conference within 7 days after the last answer. Please note that a Motion to Dismiss does not stay the deadline for filing an answer.

26. How is the timeline affected by counterclaims, cross-claims, and third party complaints?

Any time a new claim is properly asserted, a disclosure statement related to that claim must be filed within 21 days. The opposing party then has 21 days to respond to the claim and 21 days thereafter to file the related disclosure statement. Generally, the comprehensive Initial Case Management Conference does not take place until after the pleadings and disclosures on counterclaims, cross-claims, and third party complaints have been completed. The court may convene, or the parties may request, a status conference at any point. Note: To keep better track of the last answer, and to distinguish between pleading and motions practice for evaluation purposes, responses to counterclaims, cross-claims, and third party complaints should be filed under one of the “Answer” options in LexisNexis File&Serve, not under the “Response” option.

27. When and how is the Initial Case Management Conference set?

Setting practices vary by court. In most of the Pilot Project court locations, a new Delay Reduction Order requires the plaintiff to serve a Notice to Set the Initial Case Management Conference within seven days after the filing of the last answer.

Court FAQ



BLOG - History of Changes - Law Firms see WHO edited WHAT deadline and WHEN
(Posted Date: 7/5/2012)

LawToolBox was the online rule-based court deadline calculator in the country, and have been offering law firms our patented online rule-based deadlines since the 1990's. Deadlines are what LawToolBox does, but now we do them even better ...

LawToolBox has raised the bar on accountability by rolling out our “history of changes” reporting that allows law firms to see who edited what deadline and when. If you liked us before, you'll LOVE us now!





ALERT - IL Circuit - Rule Change to Rule 242
(Posted Date: 7/1/2012)

Rule 242 - Written Juror Questions Directed to Witnesses

This rule gives the trial judge discretion in civil cases to permit jurors to submit written questions to be directed to witnesses?a procedure which has been used in other jurisdictions to improve juror comprehension, attention to the proceedings, and satisfaction with jury service. The trial judge may discuss with the parties’ attorneys whether the procedure will be helpful in the case, but the decision whether to use the procedure rests entirely with the trial judge. The rule specifies some of the procedures the trial judge must follow, but it leaves other details to the trial judge’s discretion.


Rule 242



ALERT - CO District Civil - Application of Legislative Change to Conform Certain Statutes to Rule of 7
(Posted Date: 7/1/2012)

As noted in the comment to CRCP 6 (effective July 1, 2012):

TIME COMPUTATION IS SOMETIMES “FORWARD,” MEANING STARTING THE COUNT AT A PARTICULAR STATED EVENT [SUCH AS DATE OF FILING] AND COUNTING FORWARD TO THE DEADLINE DATE. COUNTING “BACKWARD” MEANS COUNTING BACKWARD FROM THE EVENT TO REACH THE DEADLINE DATE [SUCH AS A STATED NUMBER OF DAYS BEING ALLOWED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL]. IN DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULE OF SEVEN TIME COMPUTATION/TIME INTERVAL AMENDMENTS HAVING A STATUTORY BASIS, SAID AMENDMENTS TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 1, 2012 AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER TIME INTERVALS ARE COUNTED FORWARD OR BACKWARD, BOTH THE TIME COMPUTATION START DATE AND DEADLINE DATE MUST BE AFTER JUNE 30, 2012.

The import of this comment is that: (i) you "roll forward" for positive statutory deadlines and that you "roll backwards" for statutory deadlines calculated by counting back in time when a statutory deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, and (ii) for any statutory deadline conformed to the "rule of 7" the NEW TIME FRAME only applies when BOTH the trigger date and the deadline are AFTER June 30, 2012.

NOTE (1/2/13) re comment (i) above: LawToolBox is still looking for definitive authority supporting that a deadline either shall or shall not be rolled off a weekend. Until then, the calculators inside LawToolBox do not roll deadlines off weekends for STATUTORY deadlines.

Comment to CRCP 6



ALERT - CO District Civil - Rule changes expand service of process and eService (eff. 6/21/12)
(Posted Date: 7/1/2012)

Perhaps in preparation for the transition of eFiling from Lexis to the state in January 2013, the Supreme Court has made some rule changes:

1) to broaden the methods described in CRCP 4 for service of process.

2) to make it so if a litigant includes their email on a pleading you consent to service of process by email (much like the rule that has long existed which says that if you include a fax number on a pleading you consent to service by fax). See, CRCP 5(b)(D).

3) to relax and broaden the methods by which litigants or their attorneys can sign electronic pleadings (while the "s/" will continue to work, other methods are now appropriate too). See, CRCP 121 section 1-26(1)(f).

4) to require the plaintiff and parties to maintain their contact information online with the e-system. CRCP 121 section 1-26(1)(f).




Rule Changes eff 6/21/12



ALERT - UT district - rule changes (eff. 11-1-12)
(Posted Date: 6/26/2012)

Rules of Civil Procedure

URCP 025. Substitution of parties. Amend. Clarifies that the notice of hearing on a motion to substitute parties must be served with the motion if the hearing has been scheduled by the time the motion is served.
Supreme Court Order.

URCP 083. Vexatious litigants. New. Establishes the standards and procedures for declaring a person to be a vexatious litigant. Establishes management of cases involving vexatious litigants.
Supreme Court Order.


Utah State - Approved Rules



ALERT - UT District - Proposed rule changes (comment period ends 8-14-12)
(Posted Date: 6/26/2012)

Rules of Civil Procedure

URCP 010. Form of pleadings and other papers. Amend. Requires designation of the discovery tier in the caption of a claim. Requires a court-approved coversheet for counterclaims and cross claims as well as complaints. Requires that a lawyer's contact information on a paper be the same as on file with the Utah State Bar.

URCP 011. Signing of pleadings, motions, affidavits, and other papers; representations to court; sanctions. Amend. Deletes a provision that conflicts with Rule 26(e). The consequence will be that the signature on disclosures, discovery requests and discovery responses is a certification under Rule 11.

URCP 026. General provisions governing disclosure and discovery. Amend. Changes the time for initial disclosures. Provides for timing of disclosure and discovery of rebuttal experts. Clarifies that disclosure and discovery documents must be served.

URCP 026.02. Disclosures in personal injury actions. Amend. Narrows the limitation on the further use of disclosures to Plaintiff’s Social Security number and Medicare health insurance claim numbers. In a committee note, describes the committee's intent regarding the scope of the rule.

URCP 037. Discovery and disclosure motions; Sanctions. Amend. Allows the court to enter sanctions if a motion for a protective order or motion to compel is denied.

URCP 105. Shortening 90 day waiting period in domestic matters. Amend. Changes the standard of "good cause" to extraordinary circumstances" in keeping with Section 30-3-18.


Utah State - Proposed Rule



ALERT - Co Court of Appeals - Deadline for NOTICE OF APPEAL increased from 45 to 49 days (eff. 7/1/12)
(Posted Date: 6/21/2012)

CAR 4(a) provides for the notice of appeal to be filed with the appealate court and a copy to be served upon the trial court. The time for filing the notice of appeal is increased to 49 days.

Futher, upon a showing of EXCUSABLE NEGLECT (rarely granted) this deadline may be extended for a period not to exceed 35 days (this has been inceased from 30 days).

As noted in the comment to CRCP 6 & CAR 26 (effective July 1, 2012): "BOTH THE TIME COMPUTATION START DATE AND DEADLINE DATE MUST BE AFTER JUNE 30, 2012. FURTHER, THE TIME COMPUTATION/TIME INTERVAL AMENDMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO MODIFY THE SETTINGS OF ANY DATES OR TIME INTERVALS SET BY AN ORDER OF A COURT ENTERED BEFORE JULY 1, 2012."





ALERT - CO WATER - Division 1 amends Order Concerning Water Court Policies
(Posted Date: 6/21/2012)

The primary effect of the amendments to Admin Order No 12-04 was conform most of the deadlines added in this division to the rule of 7.

Admin Order No 12-04



ALERT - Co Divorce - Statutory changes effecting divorce matters (eff. 7/1/12)
(Posted Date: 6/20/2012)

Senate Bill 175 was recently passed by the Colorado Senate and was signed into law by the Governor on May 24th. The bill makes changes in Colorado statutes that are consistent with the “rule of 7” changes already adopted into the Rules of Civil Procedure. Additoinally, there will be changes to Colorado JDF forms.

C.R.S. § 14-10-106 Dissolution of marriage – legal separation
(1)(a)(I) One of the parties must have been domiciled in Colorado for 91 days prior to commencing a pleading for dissolution of marriage or legal separation. (Was 90 days)
(1)(a)(II) 91 days must elapse after court acquires jurisdiction before it may enter a decree of dissolution or legal separation. (Was 90 days)

C.R.S. § 14-10-107 Commencement – pleadings (etc.)
(4)(a) In cases of service by publication, the Respondent has 35 days to respond after the date of publication. The clerk shall also post for 35 days a copy of the process on the bulletin board. (In both cases it was previously 30 days)

C.R.S. § 14-10-110 Irretrievable breakdown
(2)(b) If one of the parties denies irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the court shall consider the relevant factors and continue the matter for further hearing not less than 35 days nor more than 63 days to make a finding whether the marriage is irretrievably broken. (Was 30 and 60 days).

C.R.S. § 14-10-120 Decree
(2) No earlier than 182 days after decree of legal separation is entered, on motion of either party the court shall convert decree to a decree of dissolution of marriage. (Was six months.)

C.R.S. § 14-10-122 Modification & termination of provisions for maintenance, support & property disposition
(1)(c) …the obligee or delegate child support enforcement unit is not required to wait 14 days to execute on a support judgment. (Was 15 days)

C.R.S. § 14-10-123 Commencement of proceedings concerning APR
(1)(c) A proceeding concerning APR may be commenced by a person other than a parent who has had the physical care of a child for a period of 182 days or more, if such action is commenced within 182 days after termination of such physical care. (Was six months in both cases)

C.R.S. § 14-10-127 Evaluation and reports
(3) Evaluator shall mail report to the court and counsel at least 21 days prior to hearing. (Was 20 days)

C.R.S. § 14-10-128.3 Appointment of decision maker
(4)(a) A party may file a motion for modification of a decision of the decision maker pursuant to a de novo hearing within 35 days after the decision is issued (was 30 days).

C.R.S. § 14-10-128.5 Appointment of arbitrator
(2) A party may apply to have an arbitrator’s award vacated, modified or corrected no later than 35 days after the date of the award (was 30 days).

C.R.S. § 14-10-129 Modification of parenting time
(3)(a) If a parent has been convicted of any of the crimes...the other parent may object to parenting time and the offending parent shall have 21 days to respond (was 20 days). If such parent responds and objects an hearing shall be held within 35 days of such response (was 30 days).

C.R.S. § 14-10-129.5 Disputes regarding parenting time
(1) Within 35 days after filing of a motion alleging parent is not complying with a parenting time order…the court shall determine from the motion and response, if any, whether there is likely to be substantial or continuing noncompliance (was 30 days)….and either:
(c) Require the parties to seek mediation and report back to the court on the results with 63 days (was 60 days).

C.R.S. § 14-13-102 Definitions
(7)(a) “Home state” means the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 182 consecutive days immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding...(was six months)

(13)”Person acting as a parent” means a person, other than a parent, who:
(a) Has physical custody of the child or has had physical custody for a period of 182 consecutive days…within one year immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding…(was six months)

C.R.S. § 14-13-201 Initial child-custody jurisdiction
(1) …court has jurisdiction only if:
(a) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or was the home state of the child within 182 days before the commencement of the proceeding…. (was six months).

C.R.S. § 14-13-305 Registration of child-custody determination
(3) The notice ….must state that:
(b) A hearing to contest the validity of the registered determination must be requested within 21 days after service of the notice (was 20 days)

C.R.S. § 14-14-111.5 Income assignments for child support or maintenance
(3) Activation of income assignment
(b)(II)Notice of activation.
(I) A statement of the obligor’s right to object to the activation of the income assignment with 14 days after the date the advance notice is sent…(was 10)
(K) A statement that failure to object to the activation within 14 days will result in the activation (was 10 days)
(VII)Objections to income assignment
(A) ..obligor may file written objection to activation of income assignment within 14 days after advance notice of activation is sent (was 10 days)… unless obligor alleges that notice was not received in which case an objection may be filed no later than 14 days after actual notice (was 10 days).
..(C) if an objection is filed a hearing shall be set and held by the court within 42 days (was 45 days)
(4) 14 days after date advance notice is mailed to the obligor … (was 10 days)
(9) If an employer discharges an employee in violation of the provisions of this section the employee may within 91 days bring a civil action for the recovery of wages (was 90 days)
C.R.S. § 14-14-112 Deductions for health insurance
(2)(g) notice shall contain a statement that employer shall notify court, obligee or CSEU in writing within 14 days after obligor terminates employment (was 10 days)

Statutory provisions under Title 19, Article 5 , Relinquishment and Adoption have also been modified but are not summarized here.
There are no changes to under Title 19, Article 6 (Child Support Proceedings.)


Senate Bill 175



BLOG - Lexis Case Study on LawToolBox and TimeMatters at LAUSD
(Posted Date: 5/17/2012)

Lexis has posted their own case study discussin LawToolBox Rule-Base Deadlines for Time Matters at the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD is the second largest school district in the country).

Don Davis, J.D., then General Counsel at LAUSD, implemented Time Matters® software across a rapidly growing practice and then integrated with LawToolBox for easier docket management.

Says Davis, “By adding LawToolBox to Time Matters, we saved hours of paralegal time
previously spent calculating and entering deadlines by hand.”

Lexis Case Study



ALERT - MN District 0 rule change (eff 5/1/12)
(Posted Date: 5/1/2012)

The rule changes effective 5/1/12 did not modify any deadlines calculated by LawToolBox.

They were limited to clarifying how media coverage of civil case under the pilot project work and domestic relations matters.

red-line



BLOG - LawToolBox One-Time Per Case Fee
(Posted Date: 4/3/2012)

Law Technology News comments on our competitor’s new pricing model (see the concluding paragraph in the link below). Maybe the market likes our pricing model so much that our competitors started using it too?


S. Doherty, LTN Post (4/3/12)



BLOG - Law Technology News Mentions LawToolBox at ABA
(Posted Date: 4/2/2012)

"LawToolBox.com, an internet-based court rules provider and deadlines calculator, boasts that it is the first online rule-based deadline calculator on the market, according to Carol-Lynn Grow, LawToolBox's vice president of marketing and sales. The nice things about Law Tool Box: the Denver-based company has all state and federal calendar rules, and it will soon have federal appellate rules; there is a one-time per case fee, with no out of pocket costs."

S. Doherty, LTN Post (4/2/12)



ALERT - WA Pierce County Rule Changes (likely eff 9/1/12)
(Posted Date: 3/20/2012)

The Pierce County Superior Court Local Rules Committee is hereby submitting its proposed rules amendments for review and comment:

PCLR 3—Estate Case Mandatory Reviews
In response to concerns expressed by practitioners, a new 60-month mandatory review track has been added for estates in which non-intervention powers have been granted.

PCLR 7/PCLR 94.04—Commissioner Motions
There are several proposed changes to the rules relating to commissioner motions, particularly show cause motions not involving restraining orders.

PCLR 65—Injunctions
The committee is proposing minor changes to the local rule to comply with timelines required by the Civil Rule.

PCLR 71—Notice of Withdrawal
We are proposing a minor local addition to the Civil Rule to require withdrawing attorneys to provide notice of upcoming mandatory appearance dates if there is no pending trial date.

There was a comment period March 30, 2012 through May 14, 2012.

Proposed changes (eff 9/1/12)



ALERT - WA King Co Superior Court - Proposed rule changes (eff 9/1/12)
(Posted Date: 3/1/2012)

Pursuant to King County Local Rule 83, the review and comment period for the proposed changes to the King County Superior Court Local Rules opens March 1, 2012. The Court will consider all comments received by April 30, 2012.

The rules with proposed changes include: LCR 4, 7, 16, 40, 40.1, 77, 83, LGR 30, LCrR 3.1, LMAR 3.2, LMAR 6.2, LJuCR 6.6, 7.1, 7.3, 7.11, 7.12, 7.14. New rules: LCR 12, 42, 53.2, LJuCR 7.16, 9.3.

The final version of the rules as adopted by the Court after the review and comment period will become effective September 1, 2012.

King Co proposed changes



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



BLOG- LawToolBox auto synchronizes over 5 million deadlines changes based Jan 2012 rule changes
(Posted Date: 1/5/2012)

LawToolBox has been monitoring and pushing rule-changes online for over 15 years, so customers don’t need to wait for a software update or re-import deadlines. Instead, deadlines for cases impacted by the rule change are automatically updated and synchronized to each user’s calendar or task list.

For example, on January 1, 2012, LawToolBox automatically recalculated and resynchronized over 5 million deadlines changes to individual attorney calendars and task lists based during the first couple of days of the new year.

“I am pleased to report that we have successfully adapted the new rules of civil procedure changing almost all deadline calculations. LawToolBox has recalculated all of the deadlines accurately and has made the corresponding changes to our Outlook calendars. Our firm has experienced a seamless and painless transition while there are legal professionals all over Colorado scrambling this week to figure out the new dates, deadline by deadline and case by case. Thank you to the professionals at LawToolBox.”
said Dennis Knight of the Harris Law firm.





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 - Orange - rule change eff 1/1/2012
(Posted Date: 1/1/2012)

Rule 112 Adoption of Rules, Policies, Procedures, and Forms (revised)
Rule 152 Nomination and Election Process – Presiding Judge (revised)
Rule 156 Nomination and Election Process – Assistant Presiding Judge (revised)
Rule 172 Approval by a Majority of Judges (revised)
Rule 352 Electronic Filing Program (previously numbered Rule 308, revised)

The only civil procedure rule modified in 2012 is the rule pertaining to efiling which is LR 352 (formerly 308).

Rule effected by rule change



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

NOTE: In practice, a plaintiff will have to decide whether they believe the case falls within CAPP before serving the summons and complaint, because the summons in a CAPP matter says the response is due 21 days after plaintiff serves initial disclosures, and is different from the summons used in a non-CAPP matter which says a response is due 21 days after the summons and complaint are served. At least one judge administering CAPP plans to issue a notice or court order confirming that the matter is governed by CAPP. If you believe that your matter has been erroneously included within CAPP by the plaintiff or the court you should CALL the court and other parties immediately before the court and parties go too far down the CAPP track to correct the error.


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

NOTE: Litigators must analyze the interplay between Rule 16, Rule 16.1 and the Pilot Project. These pilot project rules are scheduled to be incorporated into LawToolBox online rule-based court deadline calculators prior to the effective date.


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

NOTE: any claim asking for punitive damages may be subject to a motion to strike or conform to CRS 13-21-102(1.5) (“A claim for exemplary damages in an action governed by this section may not be included in any initial claim for relief. A claim for exemplary damages in an action governed by this section may be allowed by amendment to the pleadings only after the exchange of initial disclosures pursuant to rule 26 of the Colorado rules of civil procedure and the plaintiff establishes prima facie proof of a triable issue.”)


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?

NOTE: the deadline scheme to make deadlines a function of 7 days (e.g., 7, 14, 21, etc.) is intended to make deadlines expire on a weekday instead of a weekend. Assuming proposed CRCP changes go into effect simultaneously with the pilot project, court days will be eliminated from deadline calculations and the 3 day mail rule will be eliminated. Therefore deadlines should almost never land on a weekend after January 1, 2012. Further, because defendants answer is not due until plaintiff makes their initial mandatory disclosures it is likely that disclosures will be served with the complaint (and that defendants disclosures will be served with their answer if the are asserting a counterclaim) to accelerate the pace of the litigation.

Unlike CRCP 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures, the CAPP disclosures are filed with the court.


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.

NOTE: Because a motion to dismiss does not stay the proceedings claimants will be less likely to be lulled into the incorrect belief that a certificate of review will not have to be filed when expert testimony is required to establish a professional standard of care against a licensed professional pursuant to CRS 13-20-602. Some deadlines run off the date the answer is filed (PPR 6.1), while others run off the date the answer was served (PPR 3.3 and CRCP 38). The Colorado Supreme Court should consider conforming these deadlines by changing PPR 6.1 to run off the date the answer was served.


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.

See, NOTE in paragraph 7 above


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.

See, NOTE in paragraph 7 above


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 - ID USDC District - Rule Changes (eff 1/1/12)
(Posted Date: 1/1/2012)

After giving appropriate public notice and opportunity for comment on the
Revised District Court Local Rules for the District of Idaho, and said comment period
having expired; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that General Order 250 is superseded and the
attached Revised District Court Local Rules are approved and adopted, effective January
1, 2012.

The modifications to local rules effective January 1, 2012, did not effect any deadlines in the calculator.

Red-line Revd Dist Ct Rules



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



BLOG - Colorado Supreme Court links to LawToolBox
(Posted Date: 12/9/2011)

In conjunction with rolling out the new rules for pilot projects, the Colorado Supreme Court links to LawToolBox as 3rd party resource for automating the court rules online!

Co Supreme - CAPP



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).

Please note the following amendments to local rules and procedure.

1) A notification was added to the deadline for a party to respond to the complaint that "Disputes as to the AP docket designation shall be addressed by motion filed before an answer or other response is due." D.C.COLO.LCivR 3.1A.

2) deadline to file any supplemental materials before hearing weas changed fro 5 days before hearing to 7 daysbefore hearing (but since LawToolBox doesn't track hearing re motions no deadlines were modified). D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1E.

3) deadline related to motions to seal were repealed and replaced (but since LawToolBox doesn't track deadlines related to sealing a filing no deadlines were modified). D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.

4) Rules related to ADR were modified (but since LawToolBox doesn't track deadlines related to ADR no deadlines were modified). D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6.

5) Rules related to AP cases were modified (see note 1 above). D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1.

6) Rules related to depositing money into court registry were modified (but since LawToolBox doesn't track deadlines related to this rule no deadlines were modified). D.C.COLO.LCivR 67.2.

7) Rules related to bring cameras and electronic devices were modified (but since LawToolBox doesn't track deadlines related to this rule no deadlines were modified). D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.1.

8) Deadline in the instructions for preparation of the Scheduling Order, and the standard Scheduling Order itself, were modified. See, Append F and F.1.

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 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 - 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



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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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



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

RULE CHANGE: Effective June 1, 2009, by court order, the Tenth Circuit adopted important rule changes.

One of the most significant changes is mandatory electronic case filing (ECF), which requires that all documents, except the notice of appeal which is filed in the district court, MUST be efiled starting June 1, 2009. This applies even to appeals which are already in progress. ECF requires that documents be submitted through PACER in native PDF format. The only exceptions to ECF are Appendices and addenda to briefs, which must continue to be filed in hard copy ONLY. See the court's ECF training resources here.

The rule changes have been incorporated into the LawToolBox rule-based deadlines, deadline charts, firm-wide and attorney-specific deadline reports, email reminders, and forms library. For example:

* LawToolBox collects all possible trigger dates for a notice of appeal depending on what precisely is to be appealed.

* LawToolBox advises appellants or appellees that, unlike appeals in most state court sytems, in federal appeals the notice of appeal is filed in the district court not the 10th Circuit court of appeals.

* LawToolBox has added calculators to helps attorneys track the deadline to submit hard copies of the briefs, appendices, and addenda in a timely manner after briefs are filed by ECF.

* LawToolBox 10th Circuit Forms have been updated to reflect the new protocols of the 10th Circuit as set forth in the court's Practitioner's Guide.

VIDEO - 10th CIRCUIT: Click on the video link below for more information about this rule change and the LawToolBox 10th Circuit Court of Appeals deadline calculator and forms package.



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)

Important for appeals in workers comp and unemployment insurance cases - the time period for filing a petition for writ of certiorari differs according to whether a petition for rehearing is filed in the court of appeals.

See RULE CHANGE 2009(11), *.pdf from the Colorado Supreme Court.


RULE CHANGE 2009(11)



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

New protocol requiring eBriefs on cd-rom in teh Colorado Court of Appeals:

"Counsel shall file all briefs on the merits in electronic form by submission of the brief on a CD-ROM delivered to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals accompanied by the signed original in paper form. The additional copies of the brief as set forth in C.A.R.31(c) are no longer required."

See Colorado Court of Appeals, Interim Policy Regarding Electronic Records and Briefs Version 1.0 - Effective March 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