How to File a Civil Case Form

A name I hear proposed all the time is Sri Srinivasan. He was appointed by President Obama to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013, is a former Deputy Solicitor General, has argued 25 Supreme Court cases, lectured at Harvard, and has been a very successful lawyer in both public and private practice.He is an excellent writer, clearly sharp, and I attended an event where he was very engaging and charismatic. He also seems to have good relations on both political sides, so his would not be as contentious a nomination as a more strident liberal would be.

On the substance of a question, all of the justices analyze the text, history, structure, and purpose of whatever law is at stake, with an eye towards conforming their decisions to existing precedent. When an agency has arrived at a considered interpretation of a statute that it administers, the Court will generally defer to the agency's view, but the Court offers no deference on federal law to lower courts. Since many of the questions before the Court are close calls, the justices often consider the likely practical effects of their decisions.Different justices are prone to consider all of these factors in different proportions. For example, Justice Thomas relies less than other justices on precedent in constitutional cases; Justice Breyer has written about how he thinks the Court should consider the effects of decisions in light of the Constitution's pro-democratic philosophy; Justice Scalia emphasizes the text of statutes and the original intent of constitutional provisions, but refuses to consider the drafting history of legislation as a guide to its meaning; Justice Alito has mocked Justice Scalia's focus on original intent; and so on.Procedurally, the typical case goes something like this:Even before the Court hears a case, the justices and clerks have some familiarity with it, because they had to review whether to grant review of the case, which involved a round of briefing.The justices read the briefs of both sides and of any interested non-parties before oral arguments. Perhaps more importantly, the justices' clerks read the briefs, discuss the case with their justices, research the relevant legal issues, and write memos on the case.Some time after the briefs come in, the Court hears oral arguments between the parties. (This is what the press covers, but the justices generally say that oral arguments are not so important. Justice Thomas has a particular disdain for the oral arguments.) Usually, each side gets 1/2 hour, during which time the justices can ask questions about what they consider to be critical points.After oral arguments, the justices have a private conference, where they take a preliminary vote. It's rare that justices will switch after this preliminary vote, but it does happen. The highest-ranking member of the majority side decides who will write the Court's opinion.

So, a lot of people have talked about the partisanship of Democrats and Republicans yada, yada, yada—everyone is well aware of that. Let me move away from the question of whether Obama will manage to navigate through the waters of congressional gridlock, just for a moment and provide what I see could potentially be a game changer. Without Justice Scalia, the Court continues. But Chief Justice Roberts from the beginning has talked about wanting to emulate his hero Chief Justice Marshall, who transcended partisanship and got unanimous rulings, becoming the most influential justice in the Court’s history. While we can only speculate at this point, it seems possible that he will make some move to indicate that he wants the Court to fully function, rather have rulings based on 4-4 splits, upholding the lower court’s decision. I really don’t think the other Justices are going to be willing to sit on the sidelines for Obama to leave office, and wait presumably for whoever the next President.Think about this: The next President will be sworn in at the end of January in 2017. And even if they name their nominee on their first day in office, it typically takes on average about three months to nominate and confirm a new Justice. So, the question is will the other Justices and Chief Justice Roberts appeal to country to get someone confirmed? Maybe, because I can’t imagine the Supreme Court being short a Justice all the way until April or May of 2017.  

Typically, two things are required to set aside a default judgment. First, a very good reason why the Defendant did not timely respond to the lawsuit. For example, the Defendant was served with the papers but was hit by a car and in the hospital for a week recovering, and the lawsuit was not timely responded too. Second, the Defendant has a meritorious defense to the claim. The Defendant has to demonstrate that if they had a trial they had some factual or legal defensive to the claim. The Defendant has a specific time frame to respond to a default against them, usually 21 to 28 days.It is possible. But, it must be timely, it must be with good cause and with meritorious defense.Usually, I have seen the Defendant attempt to try to set a default judgment aside only after the judgment has been entered, the time frame to move to set aside has passed, and they are being garnished. It is the collection activity which triggers the Defendant to take action. These requests are denied.

Yes and No.Usually, the additional fees and costs of trying the case will outweigh the settlement.Illustrative stories:#1 Many years ago I handled a case for a young man who had suffered an unusual back injury in a rather low-speed rear-end collision that had the insurance adjuster offering $5,000. The client declined and felt that the offer was insulting as the injury had prevented him from attending air/rescue school, his lifelong dream. We tried the case and won $15,000. Of that, $5,000 went to pay our expert—a most annoying orthopedist who was also the treating physician. $5,000 went to me as my third of the recovery, which really wasn’t enough to compensate me for the time and bother of a full trial and $5,000 went to the Plaintiff. I had fronted the $5,000 in expert witness costs at risk of never being paid if we lost. The client was thankful for his day in court but had no idea the risk that I had taken as the attorney; a risk of being completely unpaid for my work and liable to the expert for the fees. I learned from that experience never to be shamed into trying a case, but I was young and dumb at the time…#2 I represented two persons from Italy who were distant cousins of a nice old couple who had died and left their home to their caregiver. The cousins I represented were not really interested in the money—which was substantial—but there was another side of the family who lived in Los Angeles but that was trying to cut my clients out and take the entire pie for themselves. The settlement was ridiculously low because the attorney for the other side of the family had assessed that I would not be willing to front the costs of obtaining the evidence necessary to try the case. Fortunately, in this day of satellites and internet, I was able to take depositions of persons located in Rome, Italy from a nice conference suite in Orange, California. The trial was a very simple couple of hours and my clients ended up with a few hundred thousand dollar recovery.Both stories have a common thread—the opposing counsel was rolling the dice.The opposition believed that they had nothing to lose by making an awful settlement offer and everything to gain if they successfully bluffed me into not trying the case. In both cases the opposition misunderstood the nature of the evidence because they had made faulty assumptions, but they had correctly assessed that they would have enjoyed huge gains if their threats had convinced my clients not to go to trial.Likewise, I have been guilty of faulty assumptions and there were occasions where I left a settlement on the table and then lost everything at trial.In one case, it was to a Beverly Hills family law specialist who understood a quirk of the local judge that I learned, only too late, killed my chances at any recovery. I was not familiar with the judge—I knew the law, knew the facts, but the opposing lawyer knew the judge and his propensity to view older claims as per se bad-faith attempts to squeeze money out of rich individuals. (My client had been unable for years to find someone willing to go up against the rather famous family law attorney who represented the wealthy ex-husband.)In another case, my client blindsided me by failing to tell me all the facts and in retrospect, with a complete understanding of the facts, I would have taken the offered settlement. Despite promises of payment, I tried that case without any retainer—we lost, client disappeared. I was just glad I hadn’t been sanctioned—the client had been very dishonest and I was left looking as though I was complicit in an attempt to make a bad claim.You just cannot make claims that it is always better to try your case or to settle.You just do the best you can.

Absolutely, but usually not in the areas you think and not in the way you think.In criminal cases, everyone has the right to an attorney even if they can’t afford one. Indigent defendants get public defenders, most of whom are at least as capable as low-fee private counterparts. The loss of justice for defendants with public defenders comes from the state’s failure to adequately fund public defender offices, leaving the dedicated attorneys very overworked and unable to pursue their client’s interests as vigorously as they would like.There is a justice gap at the “middle class” level for criminal defendants. If a judge finds that you can afford an attorney, you aren’t entitled to a public defender, but you may have to spend a large percentage of your income on the defense. And if you want to go to trial, that large percentage goes way up.On the civil side, if there’s enough money at stake, a plaintiff can usually find a lawyer to take the case on contingency, and a defendant usually will have the money to hire a good lawyer to defend itself. In those cases, the defendants are also often insured, making fees less of an issue.There is another “middle class” gap for civil litigation, though, where the damages are too high for small claims court but too low to be worth the expense of full scale litigation. Some jurisdictions deal with this issue by creating a level of court between small claims and general jurisdiction that limits discovery so that the parties can’t run up legal fees on pre-trial procedure. But not all jurisdictions have this kind of court.The worst, however, is administrative quasi-criminal proceedings. The courts have ruled that if a case is decided by an administrative hearing, there is no right to a public defender. So, for example, if you are put on the Illinois DCFS Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking System, which shows up on background checks and can disqualify you from jobs or prevent you from volunteering for your kid’s activities, even if you’re homeless, you’re not entitled to an attorney to challenge it. There are pro bono organizations that try to fill this need, but not enough of them.

I'm going to give you an approximate time frame to work with. As with all matters, especially court cases in India, the time frame may differ depending on a lot of factors. However, I'm giving you a very conservative estimate based on my experience:A. Small Causes Court- Time frame for decision- 5 years.B. District court- Senior division- (One of you will definitely appeal)- Time frame for decision-5 years.C. Writ Petition or First Appeal in High Court- (Again, one of you will definitely appeal against the District court's decision) Time frame for decision-10 years.D. Supreme Court-  (Again, one of you will definitely appeal against the High court's decision) Time frame for decision-5 years.If you are above 50 years of age, don't even think of getting this issue resolved through courts in your lifetime. There are so many ways that your tenants can stall the case. That is exactly what their lawyer will advise them. A piece of advice- If you do decide to file a case, file it under "Bonafide requirement" and include your sons/daughters in the case as they will be the actual beneficiaries in the end.I might be completely wrong as I dont know the details of your issue. So, do consult a good lawyer. As someone has said before, if you pay peanuts, you will get peanuts. The sheer anguish of the Judges of the Supreme Court is splashed in the wordings of the following judgement:Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001

Civil court trials take longer and are typically set for trial a year or 18 months after being filed. Criminal trials are set sooner since the defendant has a right to a speedy trial. The process of a lawsuit takes time: There are procedural rules that govern the process of the lawsuit and each step takes time.

The main steps in a civil case in the district courts are pleadings, motions, scheduling conference and order, discovery, pretrial conference and order, trial, and appEval. A plaintiff commences a civil case by filing a complaint with the court.

A federal civil case involves a legal dispute between two or more parties. A civil action begins when a party to a dispute files a complaint, and pays a filing fee required by statute. A plaintiff who is unable to pay the fee may file a request to proceed in form paupers.

The main steps in a civil case in the district courts are pleadings, motions, scheduling conference and order, discovery, pretrial conference and order, trial, and appEval. A plaintiff commences a civil case by filing a complaint with the court.

The main steps in a civil case in the district courts are pleadings, motions, scheduling conference and order, discovery, pretrial conference and order, trial, and appEval. A plaintiff commences a civil case by filing a complaint with the court.