Chouzan posted:

I have a rather simple question... How do motions and briefs work? Are they usually filed together? Do you have to include a brief in support when you file a motion? I'm in Idaho, if it matters.

some texas redneck posted:

Dude in a car

Robo Olga posted:

Our landlord tried to argue with the judge which was the best part of the entire thing.

Chouzan posted:

I have a rather simple question... How do motions and briefs work? Are they usually filed together? Do you have to include a brief in support when you file a motion? I'm in Idaho, if it matters.

Busy Bee posted:

I was recently involved in a hit and run where I was pushed off the road into the shoulder and then into a pole. The police officer had the nerve to give me a $124 dollar ticket for "driving on the shoulder" when my car was pretty much totaled. He said that he could tell by my "body language" that I was lying.... I am obviously going to dispute it, but I am curious on whether I should get the usual traffic lawyer for $300 or if I should fight it myself.

Choadmaster posted:

I guess this is a family law sort of question. This is in California:

...

Choadmaster posted:

Logistics posted:

Is there any legal action I can take against them for storing all this crap in the apartment walkway? From the research I've done I believe I could use Blight ordinances against them.

ChubbyEmoBabe posted:

As to the custody...that is where it gets messy. It sounds like they are doing an "uncontested divorce" in which they pretty much make all of the decisions between themselves and a judge rubber stamps it. In that case a minor has little to no say in the matter because they are not a part of the process, nor can they inject themselves into it without a whole ton of circumstances requiring it.

BigHead posted:

Edit: there is another option. There are a few jurisdictions (very very few) who have what's called a "Family Law Self-Help Center" or something. Have him call that.

Logistics posted:

Short version: My tenant is storing their crap all over the walkway between our two apartments and cluttering the place up and the landlady won't do anything about it. Can I use legal action to extract sweet justice in my favor, such as Blight ordinances?

Holy Diver posted:

Exactly what limitations are there for pretrial discovery? If a plaintiff's complaint involves IP infringement, can they subpoena all of the defendant's personal computers, hard drives, personal journals, text messages, etc?

Essentially, what prevents the discovery phase from turning into an investigation and violating the defendant's right to privacy?

Solomon Grundy posted:

There is no easy answer to that, and it is somewhat jurisdiction-specific, but most states' civil rules allow a party to make requests that are "reasonably calculated to lead" to relevant information. How broad or narrow that "reasonably calculated" standard is is something that lawyers spend lots of time fighting over. Discovery is supposed to be an investigation, and a general "privacy" objection will get you nowhere.

Generally, if you can articulate a reasonable basis why, for example, the target's diary may contain some recorded recollections regarding his or her IP theft, then you are entitled to ask for the diary. The burden then shifts to the target to demonstrate that discovery should not be had, for various reasons such as attorney-client privilege, the burdensome or oppressive nature of the request, etc.

Holy Diver posted:

The more I learn about our legal system the more sympathetic I become towards the tort reform camp. I don't see anything stopping a determined and sufficiently resourced plaintiff from filing a baseless lawsuit and then using the discovery phase to bankrupt the defendant or force them to settle.

If they're sufficiently malicious it seems like they could use the phase to demand private/compromising information; in the case of the IP infringement case, what stops them from demanding a hard drive which also has proprietary source code and customer records/credit card numbers on it? The hope that a judge will agree on the oppressive nature of that request?

And then if you manage to make it through a purposefully expensive and lengthy discovery phase and go on to win your trial you might be able to recoup your legal fees on the basis that the plaintiff knowingly filed a malicious lawsuit-- something that will cost even more in legal fees to pursue.

In closing, I propose we solve everything with sword fights.

Solomon Grundy posted:

First, what does tort deform have to do with IP litigation? IP litigation is almost all federal statutory law. Torts are typically state common law. IP litigation is usually well-resourced company v. well-resourced company, while tort litigation is usually joe sixpack v. sam stooge's insurance company (by proxy).

Second, the United States Court system is based upon the premise that anybody, whether rich, poor, giant company, or your next door neighbor, can have access to a court system that treats everyone the same. It is the one place to take greivances, big or small, and address injustice. Tort reform necessarily changes the playing field, by arbitrarily restricting access to the courts, or capping the remedies available, without relation to the facts of the case. This disproportionally favors the wealthy, who benefit from caps and restricted court access the most. The wealthy get enough breaks as it is.

Third, tort reform is premised upon a big lie. Thousands of lawsuits are filed every day, and, by and large, they are handled in a professional, and relatively efficient way. Every once in a while, you get a nut who sues for millions of dollars over a pair of pants, and the story is so odd that it gets reported in the media. You get media reports of abberational lawsuits once a month or so, and all of a sudden everyone thinks that there is an epidemic of nutty lawsuits when there really aren't. And the insurers foster this belief and smile all the way to the bank, because when you pass tort reform, the insurers no longer have to pay as much on the risks that they insure, and that they have collected premiums on for years.

Fourth, if someone issues discovery which seeks proprietary information, the target files a Motion for Protective Order, asking that the court not permit the discovery, or else only permit it on certain terms that will maintain confidentiality. Then a judicial officer hears the motion and the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties, and makes a decision that will hopefully balance all of the concerns and rights of the parties. Aww, but gently caress it, it is better that we just close the courthouse doors, pass tort reform and prohibit people from filing lawsuits or doing discovery.

Fifth, there is no objective way to measure what is, or is not, a baseless lawsuit prior to filing. What you may believe to be a baseless lawsuit is an opinion likely not shared by your opponent. And everyone who gets sued always thinks the lawsuit is baseless. That's human nature. But ultimately, there is a mechanism for determining what is, or is not, a baseless lawsuit once the case is filed. It is called a jury. But you have to go through the process to get there.

Solomon Grundy posted:

Second, the United States Court system is based upon the premise that anybody, whether rich, poor, giant company, or your next door neighbor, can have access to a court system that treats everyone the same. It is the one place to take greivances, big or small, and address injustice. Tort reform necessarily changes the playing field, by arbitrarily restricting access to the courts, or capping the remedies available, without relation to the facts of the case. This disproportionally favors the wealthy, who benefit from caps and restricted court access the most. The wealthy get enough breaks as it is.

Choadmaster posted:

Thanks. I looked into it and sure enough, we have such a thing. They also do mediation and stuff. We'll be stopping in there on Monday afternoon (really, they can only bother to be open on weekdays during standard work/school hours? *&#@ convenient).

Robo Olga posted:

Wanted to pop in with a big thank you to everyone in this thread who helped me with my landlord issues awhile back, and an especially big thank you to Incredulous Red for all the links and such he found for me. We went to small claims today and the judge ordered them to pay back our security deposit, filing fee, and prorated rent for the rest of the month after we moved out. Our landlord tried to argue with the judge which was the best part of the entire thing.

Booklegger posted:

This is self-serving bullshit. Not that tort reform as generally presented is going to do any favors for the poor, but let's not pretend that the system as it is treats everyone the same. Unless you're wronged by deep pockets, the price of obtaining justice is far out of reach for too many citizens. Think about how often the advice in this very thread is "it's not worth it" because the costs of justice exceed the harm done. Most of those costs have been imposed not by wealthy litigants, but by lawyers, judges(who are virtually all lawyers), or legislators(the vast majority? lawyers).

I do take to heart the argument of not tilting the balance between potential litigants, it's something I'd not really considered before. But it'd be nice, if, once in a while, the volume of the legal trade was pruned back, so to speak.

Solomon Grundy posted:

So on one hand, the price of the legal system bars too many, but on the other hand, we should "prune back" the volume of lawsuits?

Holy Diver posted:

Wouldn't a strict "loser pays" system address both of these problems by reducing the financial commitment required to file legitimate lawsuits while also discouraging frivolous long shot cases?

Solomon Grundy posted:

The problem with "pruning back" the volume of lawsuits

Solomon Grundy posted:

If they can't afford it, that is a social ill that is separate from the court function.

Booklegger posted:

I'd appreciate it if lawyers didn't have control over how many lawyers can practice law, both through the bar, and through control of law schools.

Abugadu posted:

Three bad side effects from that:

1. Fewer settlements. Why settle if there's the chance that all your legal bills will be paid by the other side?

2. More gouging/inefficiency. Many legitimate attorneys pare down the bills that they issue to clients as a courtesy, in an attempt to provide a more reasonable amount. If they know the other side is probably footing the bill, why not engage in lengthy, pointless discovery to run up that tab?

3. Increase in bankruptcies and/or penniless plaintiffs. Want to screw with the other side? How about leaving them with a completely uncollectable judgment against someone who won't be able to pay their rent, much less the legal fees on top of whatever the other side happens to win? Some firms would probably come up with a deposit system to be used in case of uncollectable amounts that would just do an end-around your proposed system.

Other not-quite-good but not-quite-bad side effect: lawyers get more money.


Edit: There have been many attempts to compare the American system to the English system, and this article does a better job than my half-assed attempt to explain the positives and negatives - http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/35/toran.pdf

LLJKSiLk posted:

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_%28BDSM%29

STATE: AL

I am currently dating someone who is into bondage/sadomasochism and has requested that I incorporate certain things, i.e. slapping, spanking, restraints, etc. into our time together.

I mentioned some sort of consent form being signed/put into place so that there is not some sort of fallout in terms of being termed as abuse/assault/whatever.

Is consent a valid defense provided that it is informed consent and signed by both parties?

Not looking to inflict any actual bodily harm or anything, but she expressed an interest in being "used."

Any advice on how to handle?

cassis posted:

Jurisdiction: Alberta, Canada

I’ve called the county property tax department; the account is still in old owners’ name. Land Titles Registry tells me that the old owner is still the legal registered owner of our property.

Is there any recourse I can take against the lawyer’s estate to recoup the costs I’m going to have to get the property into my name, and how the hell do I get the rest of the sales proceeds if the trust account is empty?

roomforthetuna posted:

Fairly simple legal question - if a company says they will charge "$15 plus parts", and then tries to charge $450 for a repair that uses parts which retail for $150, is there some legal recourse against this behaviour, or is it legally valid for them to argue "by 'parts' we meant whatever arbitrary amount we decide we charge for those parts"? (That basically is the argument they've given, though obviously not in those words.)

Konstantin posted:

Any reputable mechanic will give you an estimate of all charges before they make the repair. If you didn't approve the repair and they performed it anyway, you are under no obligation to pay, although they may remove their parts at their expense. If they just give you a quote for $450 for a $150 part, there is nothing illegal about that, they can charge whatever they want. If you approved the repair based on the quote of "$15 plus parts" it's your own fault for not inquiring about the cost of the parts, although the mechanic is absolute scum for pulling that on you. However, I doubt it's illegal unless the cost of the part was so high that no reasonable person would have approved it, and $450 for a $150 part doesn't meet that standard.

NarwhalParty posted:

I just purchased renter's insurance but there is no information on any precautions I should take if I ever need to process a claim. I don't have any receipts for any of my belongings, so should I take pictures or write down serial numbers of my electronics just in case?

Adar posted:

Hi thread! I'm a lawyer asking a legal question that has stumped 3 attorneys and counting! Nothing can go wrong with this amirite?

The background is that I'm self-employed and self-insured through Atlantis Health Plan, a regional company in NY. My wife gave birth to our child in July at a hospital that took Atlantis, we gave our insurance information, Atlantis covered the birth* and we were fine.

*the plot thickens here

Since that point, we have received several bills from the hospital for over $2,000. Each time, we duly called the hospital and failed to get a human being (heh), then called Atlantis, who told us everything was fine and the bill was paid. After the fourth letter - that said the debt was going to collections - I speed dialed the hospital for two hours and finally managed to get a response.

The short version is that when my wife gave birth, Atlantis was nearly insolvent (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100830/PULSE/100829807) and is still having trouble paying claims. Since then, they've gotten a cash infusion, but all claims prior to September are being treated under some settlement that Atlantis claims they've reached with the hospital - for $7,000. The hospital's version of this is that Atlantis made them a $7,000 offer on $185,000 of debt, they laughed at it and are now proceeding to send the individual patients to collections, at which point (the hospital says) Atlantis has said they'd pay up.

As far as the person answering the phones at Atlantis is concerned and told us, the hospital accepted the settlement, has written off the rest of the debt and everything is fine. Note that I believe this about as much as Iranian election results.

So, aside from "do I need a new insurance company?" (lol), my questions are:

1)Does the hospital actually have a claim against the patients? <--- nobody that I've talked to knows this one for sure argh
2)Assuming they don't, chances are no amount of yelling at them on the phone is going to keep them from following through. Do I have any legal recourse for what (in this case) amounts to a fraudulent debt collection? Against whom?
3)If I pay the bill and sue Atlantis for the money in small claims, can I get a judgment enforced before they inevitably go bankrupt? (I'm guessing no? What's a small claims docket look like in NY?)
4)Assuming this gets to collections and I dispute it, I would like my credit rating to not die. Can I take any preventative measures other than disputing the debt to do this?
5)gently caress the American health care system and everything it stands for

Thanks!