tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64798501841478801862023-06-21T00:39:43.797-04:00NEW HAMPSHIRE'S LAW AND LITIGATION SOURCEPat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-39191545800470213382013-11-30T09:28:00.001-05:002013-11-30T09:28:13.764-05:00NH District Court publishes Local Rules with changes effective 12/1/13.<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Copies of the Court's Local Rules with amendments effective 12/1/13 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">are available in the clerk's office for $4.50, and will be available on the court's website on 12/2/13.</span><br style="background-color: #fff9ee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #fff9ee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The NH District Court's web site is:</span><br style="background-color: #fff9ee; color: #222222; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span><a href="http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ru/">http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ru/</a>Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-20961224113035045722013-02-02T11:40:00.003-05:002013-02-02T11:40:36.767-05:00Summary of the Rules, Orders and Forms changes to the NH Bankruptcy Court effective February 1, 2013.<br />
<b><span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><i>Below is a summary of the changes, effective 2/1/13, to the New Hampshire Bankruptcy Court's Local Rules, Forms and Administrative Orders, as prepared by the Bankruptcy Court:</i></span></b><br />
<b><span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br /></span></b><b><span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE<br />Public Notice 13-1<br />FROM: Jennifer A. Hayes, Clerk<br />SUBJECT: Local Bankruptcy Rules, Interim Bankruptcy Rules,<br />Administrative Orders, and Local Bankruptcy Forms<br />DATE: January 18, 2013<br />The Court has adopted new Local Bankruptcy Rules (LBRs), Interim<br />Bankruptcy Rules (IBRs), Administrative Orders (AOs), and Local Bankruptcy<br />Forms (LBFs), repealing all prior versions, effective February 1, 2013.<br />The Rules, Administrative Orders, and Forms are available for review and<br />download on the Court’s website at <a href="http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/">www.nhb.uscourts.gov</a>. A red-lined copy is<br />also available. The Clerk’s Office will issue a notice when bound copies of the<br />Rules, Administrative Orders, and Forms become available.<br />The Court has also issued a Summary of Significant Changes which lists<br />many, but not all, of the changes to the LBRs, AOs, and LBFs. This summary is<br />also available on the Court’s website. </span></b><br />
<b><span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br /></span></b>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><u>UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE<br />SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULES,</u></span><u><span style="font-size: small;">ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND LOCAL FORMS EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 2013</span></u></strong></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: small;">After review by the rules advisory committee, public comment, and internal review, the<br />court has issued amended local bankruptcy rules, administrative orders and local bankruptcy forms effective February 1, 2013. Many of the amendments and additions were made to provide for consistent language and procedures throughout the local rules, incorporate former administrative orders into the local rules, and to remove obsolete or unused provisions. This summary is intended to highlight many of the significant changes in the local rules. However, it does not list all changes, and all readers are encouraged to review the full text of the amended local rules, and the redlined version showing all changes, both of which are available on the court’s web site at </span><a href="http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/"><span style="font-size: small;">www.nhb.uscourts.gov</span></a><span style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><strong><u>Local Bankruptcy Rules</u></strong></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><strong><u><br /></u></strong></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>LBR 1002-1 Petition</b> - General: Many items in the former rule have been eliminated to simplify the new rule and eliminate duplication of requirements in other rules.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>LBR 1006-1 Fees - Installment Payments:</b> Amended to provide for 3 additional payments after an initial payment, rather than 3 equal payments.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>LBR 1007-1 Lists, Schedules and Statements:</b> The sequence for documents filed in relation to a bankruptcy petition has been changed to reflect current practice. Amended LBR 1007-1(k) on extensions of time to file schedules and statements to reflect court policies regarding extensions in relation to the § 341 meeting of creditors.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>LBR 1007-6 Filing of Educational Individual Retirement Accounts Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(c):</b> Implementing the requirements of § 521(c) of the Bankruptcy Code while preserving the privacy of individual identifying information.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>LBR 1009-1 Amendments to Petitions, Lists, Schedules and Statements: </b>Amended LBR 1009-1(b)(6) through (b)(8) to reflect changes in the procedural requirements for amendments to schedules I and J. See also LBF 1009-1A. The amended rule involves other changes.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>LBR 1017-2 Dismissal or Suspension - Case or Proceedings:</b> Deleted former LBR 1017-2(b) to reflect current practice.</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>LBR 2015-2 Chapter 11 - Filing Monthly Operating Reports:</b> A new local bankruptcy rule which reflects long-standing policies and procedures regarding monthly operating reports in C</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">h. 11 cases.</span></div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b><br /></b><span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 2016-2 Contingent Hearings on Compensation of Professional Persons:</b> Former AO 2016-2 has been eliminated and incorporated into the local rules permitting contingent hearings in specific situations specified in the new rule.</span></span></div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 2083-2 Chapter 13 — Proof of Value of Real Estate; Proof of Insurance: </b>Requires debtor to provide proof of value of real estate, and other documents 7 days prior to §341 meeting.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 2090-2 Disciplinary Rules and Procedures:</b> This rule has been amended to incorporate the local disciplinary rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, </span>LR 83.5, by reference, rather than at length.</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 3012-1 Motions to Determine Secured Status and Void Wholly Unsecured Liens:</b> This new local rule replaces former AO 3012-1, which has been eliminated. The new rule requires the use of the specified local form for proposed orders and contingent notices of hearing. See </span>LBF 3012-1A.</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 3015-3 Chapter 13 - Confirmation</b></span></div>
<div>
<b>LBR 3015-4 Chapter 13 - Modification of Plan After Confirmation:</b> Amended to require use of the appropriate local form for contingent notice of hearing. See also the revised form of chapter 13 plan at LBF 3015-1A.</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 4001-1 Automatic Stay - Relief from:</b> The provisions of former AO 4001-1 requiring<br />worksheets to be filed with certain motions for relief has been eliminated and the requirement has been incorporated into the local rule at LBR 4001-1(h). </span></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b><span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 4001-2 Cash Collateral:</b> Former AO 4001-2 regarding hearings on initial and subsequent requests for use of cash collateral has been eliminated and the procedures incorporated into LBR 4001-2(f).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 4001-4 Motion to Incur Additional Debt to Acquire Motor Vehicle in Chapter 13:</b> This new local rule and new LBF 4001-4 provide a simplified procedure for chapter 13 debtors to request approval to incur debt to acquire a motor vehicle.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 4002-1 Debtor - Duties:</b> New subsection (c) has been added to the rule at the request of the advisory committee to clarify that paper copies must be brought to the § 341 meeting.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 5010-1 Reopening Cases:</b> The rule has been amended to reflect the verified<br />motion/affidavit under the decision in <u>In re Corbett</u>, 425 B.R. 51 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2010).</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 7003-1 Cover Sheet:</b> The amended rule includes a provision requiring that the complete </span>names and addresses of all parties be included with the adversary proceeding cover sheet.</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 7016-3 Final Pretrial Conferences:</b> LBR 7016-3(b) has been amended to require the attendance of counsel and all unrepresented parties at a final pretrial conference.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 7055-1 Default Judgment:</b> The local rule has been amended to reflect current policy and procedure for obtaining a default judgment.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /><b>LBR 7102 Motion Content:</b> The requirement in former LBR 7102(a)(2) to include the date and time of the hearing in the caption of all pleadings has been eliminated and replaced by a new requirement for notices of hearing in LBR 7104. The requirement for a memorandum in former </span>LBR 7102(b)(2) and the requirement to certify attempts to obtain concurrence in former LBR 7102(d) have been eliminated.</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 7103 Certificate of Service - Motions:</b> LBR 7103(a) has been amended to clarify the requirements for a certificate of service for all pleadings. LBR 7103(e) has been added to specify the sanction for failure to comply with the rule.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 7104 Notice of Hearing:</b> This new rule specifies the required content for a notice of<br />hearing. These new requirements have replaced the requirements in former LBR 7102(a)(2) and LBR 9004-1 to include the date and time of the hearing in the caption of the pleading.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 9004-1 Pleadings and Documents - Requirements of Form:</b> Former LBR 9004-1(a) regarding the caption for pleadings and documents has been eliminated and replaced with requirements for notices of hearing in LBR 7104.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 9004-2 Caption - Pleadings/Documents, General:</b> The form of the caption in contested matters required by former LBR 9004-1(b) has been eliminated. The requirements for captions in consolidated/jointly administered cases in former LBR 9004-2(c) has been replaced by LBR 9004-2(b) to reflect current court procedure.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 9011-2 <i>Pro Se</i> Parties:</b> The rule has been amended to clarify that trusts, limited liability companies and unincorporated associations may not appear pro se.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 9019-1 Settlements:</b> The rule has been amended to require counsel to appear in court to state the terms of a settlement on the record, when a motion to approve a settlement and a proposed order have not been filed by the date of the scheduled hearing, unless the court orders otherwise.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>LBR 9037-1 Redaction of Personal Identifiers: </b>This new rule reflects current procedures regarding motion to redact or restrict access to documents in open and closed cases and references LBF 9037-1A and LBF 9037-1B, the new forms of orders to be used.</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>4 LBR 9072-1 Orders - Proposed:</b> Former LBR 9072-1(c) specifying requirement </span>for proposed orders approving settlements has been eliminated.</div>
</span><br />
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b><u>Administrative Orders</u></b></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b><u><br /></u>AO 2016-1 Fee and Expense Guidelines:</b> AO 2016-1(a)(1) has been amended to clarify that in a chapter 13 case the entire unpaid balance of the “no look” fee may be paid during the first twelve months of the plan. AO 2016-1(a)(2) has been added to provide that in a chapter 13 case approved fees in addition to the “no look” fee, plus the amount of any unpaid “no look” fee, up to $3,500 may be paid during the first twelve months of the plan.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 2016-2 Hearings on Compensation of Professional Persons:</b> Eliminated and replaced by new LBR 2016-2.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 3012-1 Motions to Determine Secured Status and Void Wholly Unsecured Liens:</b><br />Eliminated and replaced by new LBR 3012-1.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 3022-2 Chapter 11 - Motion to Administratively Close Individual Chapter 11 Cases: </b>A new administrative order which reflects current court procedures to administratively close individual chapter 11 cases post confirmation.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 4001-1 Automatic Stay - Worksheets in Support:</b> Eliminated and replaced by new LBR 4001-1(h).</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 4001-2 Cash Collateral Hearings:</b> Eliminated and replaced by new LBR 4001-2(f).</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 5005-4 Electronic Filing:</b> Provisions on registration, issuance of passwords and service by electronic means have been amended to reflect current practices and procedures. AO 5005-4(d)(3) has been amended to reflect the elimination of the former two forms for declarations which have been replaced by one form, new LBF 5005-4, for all purposes.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 7008-1 Adversary Proceedings - Pleadings</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 7012-1 Adversary Proceedings - Defenses and Objections</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 9027-1 Removal</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><b>AO 9033-1 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:</b> Four new administrative </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">orders which will require the parties to raise, and the court to address, any constitutional </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">jurisdiction issues after the decision in </span><u style="font-family: Arial;">Stern v. Marshall</u><span style="font-family: Arial;">, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), pending future </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.5</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b><u>Local Bankruptcy Forms</u></b></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The text of many of the local bankruptcy forms contains prompts in brackets, such as [name of lien holder here], which are intended to assist persons using such forms in completing them properly. Such prompts are not be included in any document or proposed order filed with the court. The court’s web site contains copies of the local forms in Word Perfect and Microsoft Word formats.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>LBF 1009-1A Amendment Cover Sheet:</b> Amended to conform with the new requirements under LBR 1009-1 for amendments to schedules I and J.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>LBF 1009-1B Notice to Additional Creditors:</b> The form has been amended to clarify the determination of deadlines.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>LBF 1017-2 Affidavit for Payment of Fees</b>: Eliminated as unnecessary.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>LBF 2083-3 Chapter 13 Monthly Operating Report:</b> Eliminate an erroneous column in the “Summary of Unpaid Post-Petition Debts.”</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>LBF 3012-1A Oder Granting Motion to Determine Secured Status and Void Wholly </b><b>Unsecured Lien:</b> The words “after notice and a hearing” have been deleted due to the use of </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">contingent notices.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>LBF 3015-1A Chapter 13 Plan:</b> Various amendments requested by the rules advisory committee.</span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>LBF 3017-1A Notice of Hearing on Adequacy of (Amended) Disclosure Statement </b></span><span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><b>Dated </b></span><b style="font-family: Arial;">LBF 3017-1B Order Approving Disclosure Statement:</b><span style="font-family: Arial;"> Former LBF 3017-1 has </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">been </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">renumbered as LBF 3017-1A. LBF 3017-1B is a new local form of order for approval of </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">disclosure statements.</span></div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
<div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="8" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: small;"><div>
<b>LBF 4001- 4 <i>Ex Parte </i>Motion to Incur Additional Debt:</b> A new local form in connection with new LBR 4001-4.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>LBF 4003-2C Order Granting Motion to Avoid Lien Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2):</b> A new form requiring recording information for the lien to be avoided.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>LBF 5005-4A Declaration Regarding Electronic Filing For Petitions, Schedules and </b><b>Amendments to Schedules</b></div>
<div>
<b>LBF 5005-4B Declaration Regarding Electronic Filing for Documents Other Than </b><b>Petitions, Schedules and Amendments to Schedules:</b> These two forms have been eliminated and replaced with one form of declaration at LBF 5005-4.6</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>LBF 5005-4 Declaration Regarding Electronic Filing:</b> A new form that replaces both former LBF 5005-4A and LBF 5005-4B. See also the amendments to AO 5005-4.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>LBF 9037-1A Order Granting Motion to Restrict Access to Proof of Claim In a Closed </b><b>Case:</b> A new form which implements the court’s procedures for motions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037 to restrict access to a proof of claim in a closed case.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>LBF 9037-1B Order Granting Motion to Strike Proof of Claim:</b> A new form for use with motions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037 to strike a proof of claim in an open case.</div>
</span></span><br />
<b><span family="SANSSERIF" lang="0" ptsize="12" style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br /></span></b>
Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-26222790807434189462013-02-01T09:03:00.003-05:002013-02-02T11:38:28.767-05:00NH Bankruptcy Rules, Forms and Administrative Orders change as of 2/1/13!<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The new Local Bankruptcy Rules, Interim Bankruptcy Rules, Administrative Orders, and Local Bankruptcy Forms adopted by the Court will become effective February 1, 2013.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The Rules, Orders, and Forms are available for review and download on the Rules & Forms page of the Court's website at </span><a href="http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/OrdersRulesForms/neworfs.htm" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" target="_blank">http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/<wbr></wbr>OrdersRulesForms/neworfs.htm</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">. A Summary of Significant Changes is also available.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Forms will be available on the Court's website in Word and WordPerfect format only. Practitioners should consult with their petition preparation software companies as to when updated software will be available that includes the new and revised Forms. <b> </b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><b>The Clerk's Office will monitor all forms filed and submitted for compliance with the new Forms.</b></span><b><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /></b><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">A notice will be issued when bound copies of the Rules, Orders, and Forms become available.</span>Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-42395962299187103562012-12-19T17:38:00.001-05:002012-12-19T17:39:20.063-05:00Massachusetts now requires legal fee agreements to be in writing.<br />
<div align="center" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS<br />
<em>of the Supreme Judicial Court</em><br />
99 High Street<br />
Boston, Massachusetts 02110<br />
<a href="tel:617-728-8700" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank" value="+16177288700">617-728-8700</a><br />
Fax: <a href="tel:617-482-8000" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank" value="+16174828000">617-482-8000</a><br />
<a href="http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">www.mass.gov/obcbbo</a></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<strong>Supreme Judicial Court Amends Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(b) and 6.5</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
On October 24, 2012, the Supreme Judicial Court <a href="http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/SJCRPC10-24-12.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">issued an order</a> amending Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(b) to require in paragraph (b)(1) that, in most circumstances, the scope of the representation and basis or rate of the fee and expenses be communicated to the client in writing. The amendment is a major change from the prior version of Rule 1.5(b), which required only that fee arrangements “preferably” be communicated in writing. No change has been made to Rule 1.5(c), which has always required that contingent fee agreements be in writing. The effective date of the amendment is January 1, 2013.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
New comment 2 to the rule elaborates on what is required, stating that “a simple memorandum or copy of the lawyer’s customary fee schedule is sufficient if the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee is set forth.” (The more prudent course, however, is for the lawyer to have a fee agreement signed by the client to prevent any misunderstanding as to whether the client was furnished with the required writing.) The comment further notes that the lawyer ordinarily should send the written fee statement to the client before any substantial services are rendered.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
There are a few exceptions to the mandate of a writing. Section (b)(2) of the revised rule creates exemptions to the requirement of a written statement for a single-session legal consultation and for a situation in which the lawyer reasonably expects the total fee to the client will be under $500. This section additionally specifies that, where an indigent representation fee is imposed by a court, a writing is not required because no fee agreement has been entered into between a lawyer and a client.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Finally, the same <a href="http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/SJCRPC10-24-12.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">SJC order</a> also amends Mass. R. Prof. C. 6.5, concerning non-profit and court-annexed limited legal services programs, by adding a new paragraph (a)(1) indicating that lawyers providing short-term limited legal services under the auspices of such programs are not subject to Rule 1.5(b).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
These amendments to Rule 1.5 are more fully discussed in an <a href="http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/WriteItUp.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">article</a> on the BBO website.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<em>David S. Mackey</em><br />
<em>Chair</em><br />
<em>Board of Bar Overseers</em><br />
<em>99 High Street</em><br />
<em>Boston, MA 02110</em></div>
Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-8484291930628073532012-12-10T05:00:00.003-05:002012-12-10T05:00:45.211-05:00Bankruptcy Rules and Forms change in December 2012<br />
<h1 class="title" id="page-title" style="background-color: white; color: maroon; font-family: georgia, serif; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 29px; margin: 10px 0px 10px 20px; text-transform: uppercase;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>From the massachusetts bankruptcy court's web site:</i></span></h1>
<h1 class="title" id="page-title" style="background-color: white; color: maroon; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 19px; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 29px; margin: 10px 0px 10px 20px; text-transform: uppercase;">
NOTICE REGARDING CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY RULES AND FORMS EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 2012</h1>
<div class="region region-content" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">
<div class="block block-system" id="block-system-main">
<div class="content">
<div about="/mab/news/notice-regarding-changes-federal-bankruptcy-rules-and-forms-effective-december-1-2012" class="node node-news-announcements clearfix" id="node-176" style="zoom: 1;" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document">
<div class="content">
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded">
Proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007, 2015, 3001, 7054 and 7056 will become effective December 1, 2012. The complete text of these rules is available on the U.S. Courts Website:<br />
<a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/rules/pending-rules.aspx" style="color: #1765b3; text-decoration: initial;" target="_blank">http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/rules/pending-rules.aspx</a><br /><br />The following is a summary of the changes:<br /><br />The amendments to <b>Rules 1007 and 2015</b> are technical. The amendments conform Rule 1007(c) to the amendment to Rule 1007(a)(2) in 2011 and Rule 2015 to the renumbering of section 704(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code in 2005.<br /><br /><b>New Rule 3001(c)(3)</b> provides additional information on claims based on an open-end or revolving consumer credit agreement, such as claims for credit card debts. The creditor would be required to file a statement that provides the name of the entity from whom the creditor purchased the account; the name of the entity to whom the debt was owed at the time of the account holder’s last transaction; the date of the account holder’s last transaction; the date of the last payment on the account; and the charge-off date. Official Form B10, the Proof of Claim form, will be amended effective December 1, 2012 to reflect these additional requirements, but no Official Form is currently planned to contain the information detailed in this new Rule.<br /><br /><b>Rule 7054</b> increases the time for a party to respond to the prevailing party’s bill of costs in an adversary proceeding from 1 day to 14 days, and extends the time for seeking court review of the costs taxed by the clerk from 5 days to 7 days.<br /><br />The amendment to <b>Rule 7056</b> sets a new default deadline for filing a summary judgment motion. The current rule incorporates Civil Rule 56, which sets the default deadline at 30 days after the close of discovery. Because hearings in bankruptcy cases sometimes occur shortly after the close of discovery, the new default deadline would be 30 days before the initial date set for an evidentiary hearing.<br />
<b>OFFICIAL FORMS CHANGES</b><br /><br />Official Forms B7, B9, B10 and B21 will be changed effective December 1, 2012. Copies of the new forms are available on the U.S. Courts Web site:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/BankruptcyForms/BankruptcyFormsPendingChanges.aspx" style="color: #1765b3; text-decoration: initial;" target="_blank">http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/BankruptcyForms/BankruptcyFormsPendingChanges.aspx</a><br /><br />The following is a summary of the form changes:<br /><br /><b>Form B7</b> Statement of Financial Affairs is amended to make the definition of “insider” consistent with the statutory definition found in the United States Bankruptcy Code.<br /><br /><b>Forms B9A through B9I</b> Notices of Bankruptcy Case Meeting of Creditors and Deadlines are amended to remind creditors not to attach the form Notice to any proof of claim or other filing in the case for privacy reasons.<br /><br /><b>Form B10</b> Proof of Claim is amended to remind filers of attachment requirements under Rule 3001(c). A previous direction requiring a power of attorney for authorized agents has been removed.<br /><br /><b>Form B21</b> Statement of Social Security Number of Taxpayer-Identification Number is amended to remind debtors that this form should be submitted to the court. This form and debtors’ social security numbers or taxpayer-identification numbers are non-public information.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-19857870311587912652012-11-18T07:46:00.000-05:002012-11-18T07:47:55.541-05:00First Circuit Decisions November 2012<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><i><br /></i></span></b></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><b><i>Bank's negligence in releasing funds is a question of fact, precluding summary judgment:</i></b></span></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><u>Candelario
Del-Moral v. UBS Fin. Services Inc. of Puerto Rico</u>, No. 10-1275 (1<sup>st</sup>
Cir. 11/9/12)(Before Appellate Judges Howard, Selya, Thompson, Opinion by Justice Thompson).</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"> <!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">In plaintiff's
suit against a bank claiming that it was negligent as a matter of law in letting
her ex-husband withdraw millions from certain accounts, by negligently relying
on a defective "minutes" order vacating a multi-million dollar attachment
plaintiff obtained against her ex-husband in divorce proceedings, the judgment
of the district court is vacated and remanded where: 1) although the "minutes"
order was facially defective because it was not signed by the judge nor notice
given to the parties, a reasonable jury could find that the defendant acted
reasonably, which makes a trial necessary as this would be a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on this issue (reasonableness is generally a question for the jury and the issue in negligence is whether the defendant acted "reasonably"); and since this is remanded, the rulings on damages are of necessity vacated as well to be addressed upon remand; and 2) defendant's request to remand
the case to a new judge is denied - there were no showings requiring recusal upon remand, as such would be the exception and not the rule and this case is not the exception. Finally, </span>"Our work finally over, we <span style="text-decoration: underline;">vacate</span> the summary judgment for
Candelario and <span style="text-decoration: underline;">remand</span> for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion, though we do not think that we are crossing any
lines in "suggesting that this is a case best resolved by settlement." <span style="text-decoration: underline;">See</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Bos. Edison Co.</span> v. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n</span>, 233
F.3d 60, 69 (1st Cir. 2000). Again, we intimate no view on the ultimate outcome."</div>
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11.5pt;"></span>Click here for the full opinion:</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1275P.01A" title="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1275P.01A">Click
here: USCA1 Opinion</a> </span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p>
</span>
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>Starbuck violated Tips Act by allowing managers to share in wait staff's tips:</i></b><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><u>Matamoros v.
Starbucks Corp.,</u> No. 12-1189</b> <b>(1<sup>st</sup> Cir. 11/9/12)(Before Appellate Judges Thompson, Selya, Lipez, Opinon by Justice Selya).</b> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In employees'
class action suit against Starbucks, claiming that its policy of allowing shift
supervisors to share in the pooled gratuities violated the Tips Act, judgment of
the district court is affirmed where: 1) the plain language of the [Massachusetts] Tips Act
states unequivocally that only employees who possess "no managerial
responsibility" may qualify as "wait staff"; and 2) remainder of parties'
contentions are without merit. "After careful consideration of a fundamental (and previously unanswered)
interpretative question, we hold that the plain language of the Tips Act
prohibits the defendant's tip-pooling policy. We also reject the parties' other
claims of error. When all is said and done, we leave the combatants where we
found them."</span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"></span>Click here for full opinion:</div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">
</span>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=12-1189P.01A" title="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=12-1189P.01A">Click
here: USCA1 Opinion</a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">
</span>Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-65905952966587765792012-11-12T12:12:00.000-05:002012-11-12T12:12:19.498-05:0011/9/12: N.H. District Court case re calculating the award of costs & fees in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 Action using "lodestar" method.<br />
<div class="CM16" style="line-height: 13.0pt; margin-bottom: 25.1pt;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Foley
v. Town of Lee, Huppe, et al.,</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> 2012 DNH 189 (D.N.H. 11/9/12) (District
Judge Joseph LaPlante).<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="CM2" style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">SUMMARY OF MEMORANDUM
ORDER </span></u></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="CM5" style="margin-right: 7.25pt; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The parties to this
lawsuit, a civil rights and tort action arising out of a dispute over a
vacation camping trailer at a campground in Lee, New Hampshire, disagree over
the amount of fees and costs that the plaintiffs should receive under the Fees
Act. <u>See </u><a href="https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=42+usc+1988(b)&rs=WLW12.10&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&utid=1&fn=_top&mt=FirstCircuit&sv=Split"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)</span></a>.
During trial, the parties reached a settlement of all claims, including the
plaintiffs’ claim under <a href="https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=42+usc+1983&rs=WLW12.10&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&utid=1&fn=_top&mt=FirstCircuit&sv=Split"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">42 U.S.C. § 1983 </span></a><a href="https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=42+usc+1983&rs=WLW12.10&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&utid=1&fn=_top&mt=FirstCircuit&sv=Split"><span style="color: black; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">that certain
police officers in the Town of Lee (known, together </span></a>with the Town,
the police department, and other officers named here as the “municipal defendants”)
had violated the plaintiffs’ right to procedural due process by threatening to
arrest them if they remained with the camping trailer. As part of the
settlement, the municipal defendants agreed that the plaintiffs could “submit
an application for fees and costs through and including April 2, 2012, as
though pursuant to <a href="https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=42+usc+1988&rs=WLW12.10&findjuris=00001&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&utid=1&fn=_top&mt=FirstCircuit&sv=Split"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">42 U.S.C. § 1988</span></a>,”
to be determined by this court. Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees in the sum of
$55,337.54 and “costs and expert fees” in the sum of $6,441.58. The municipal defendants
argue that the plaintiffs should receive only $8,054.39 in fees and $2,639.98
in costs. While, the court agrees with the municipal defendants as to the
plaintiffs’ recoverable costs, the court rules that the plaintiffs can recover
$29,664.25 in fees. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
Fees Act provides that in civil rights cases brought under<a href="https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=42+usc+1983&rs=WLW12.10&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&utid=1&fn=_top&mt=FirstCircuit&sv=Split"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 42 U.S.C. § 1983 </span></a>,
the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable
attorney’s fee as part of the costs. Although this fee-shifting provision is
couched in permissive terminology, awards in favor of prevailing civil rights plaintiffs
are virtually obligatory. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the
amount they have requested, usually under the “lodestar” method. Time spent on
work against the plaintiffs other than the municipality were not properly chargeable
to the municipality. As for expert witness
fees. These were not awarded as the alleged expert was disqualified to testify.
Further, expert witness fees are allowed only to enforce Section 1981 or
1981(a).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="CM5" style="margin-right: 7.25pt; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Unproductive time, such as
correcting counsel’s or filing errors are not compensable; excessive time spent
on a task is not compensable; tasks performed by and attorney that were
essentially paralegal or secretarial tasks are not compensable as attorney time
but rather at the reduced rate of the paraprofessional. Court examined what was
a reasonable hourly rate for the attorneys, citing to its prior opinion in <u>Frost</u>,
2012 <u>DNH</u> 072, 14, that $190 and $160 represented reasonably hourly rates
for attorney with 11 and 5 yours of experience, respectively, relying on a survey
of New Hampshire attorney which indicated that most attorney over age 40 charge
between $151 and $250 per hour and that most younger attorney charge between
$120 and $125. Thus, the court found
here that $175, rather than $250, was the reasonable, applicable hourly rate
for the professionals. After applying
these changes, the court declined to further adjust the award of cots and fees
upward or downward.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<br /></div>
<div class="Default">
<br /></div>
Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-669023645655413982012-11-08T18:26:00.001-05:002012-11-18T07:46:30.409-05:00Recent First Circuit & BAP Cases on Bankruptcy<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<b style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Construction debt is not discharged under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A):</i></b><br />
<br />
<div>
<a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=11-9004P.01A">Click
here: USCA1 Opinion</a></div>
<br />
<b style="font-family: inherit;"><u>SHARFARZ, Appellant, v. GOGUEN [Debtor], Appellee,</u></b><b style="font-family: inherit;"> 691 <u>F.3d</u> 62 (1st Cir. 2012) </b><b style="font-family: inherit;">(Before Justices Boudin, Souter, Thompson, Opinion by Thompson). </b><span style="font-family: inherit;">“What happened in this bankruptcy case is probably every homeowner's worst nightmare." </span><u style="font-family: inherit;"> HELD</u><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 40px;">: First Circuit vacated the BAP's judgment and remanded to that tribunal with directions that it, in turn, remand the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. <u>SUMMARY</u>: The First Circuit agreed with the Bankruptcy Court that the construction debt at issue was not discharged per Section 523(a)(2)(A). </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">While the BAP found that creditor failed to satisfy the cause-in-fact rule that the chapter 7 debtor's misrepresentations induced him to enter into the construction</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> <u>contract</u>, the First Circuit disagreed and found the focus to be broader, examining the <u>transaction</u>. Examining the transaction, the First Circuit found that the creditor satisfied its proof as to cause-in-fact and legal cause. Thus, the creditor showed that the debtor's lies led to a loss that might reasonably have been expected to result from the reliance i.e.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">as the debtor (pre-petition) strung the creditor along with lies about the permit application relevant to the projected construction project, the debtor could have reasonably foreseen that his deceit would delay the project, which would lead to the project pouring concrete in cold weather, which in turn would lead to the concrete foundation cracking. </span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 30pt;">So, to put the point in "Restatement" terms, creditor's reliance on debtor's misrepresentations resulted in a " loss" that could " reasonably" have been " expected" to occur " from the reliance" — indeed the loss here was expected. </span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 30pt;">Creditor prevails</span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 30pt;"> because he adequately proved causation and debtor did not bear his burden of showing an intervening or superseding cause. Consequently, the First Circuit reversed the BAP's decision which BAP decision reversed the bankruptcy court. Finally, the amount not discharged will be determined upon remand to the bankruptcy court. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 30pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 30pt;"><b><i>Income tax refunds are property of the Ch. 13 bankruptcy estate and thus may be exempted; timing determines whether they are part of disposable income:</i></b></span><br />
<a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/bpgetopn.pl?OPINION=11-074P" style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 30pt;">Click
here: USBAP1 Opinion 11-074P</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><u>MATOS [Debtor],</u></b><u> <b>Appellant, v.</b> <b>RIVERA, Chapter 13 Trustee</b></u><b>,</b> <b>Appellee, BAP NO. PR 11-074</b>, <b>(BAP 1</b><sup style="font-weight: bold;">st</sup><b> Circuit Sept. 26, 2012) (Before Judges Boroff, Deasy, and Bailey)(Opinion by Deasy). </b><u>HELD:</u><b> </b>Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court's determination that the income tax refund at issue was not property of the estate. BAP found that the income tax refund was property of the chapter 13 bankruptcy estate and thus could be exempted on Schedule C. As such, the Chapter 13 trustee's objection to the debtor's exemption in the refund is overruled.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For a similar ruling,<b> <i>See</i> <u>SANTIAGO, MORALES,</u></b><u> <b>Appellants, v.</b> <b>RIVERA, Chapter 13 Trustee,</b> <b>Appellee</b></u><b>, BAP NO. PR 11-075 (BAP 1</b><sup style="font-weight: bold;">st</sup><b> Circuit September 26, 2012) (Before Boroff, Deasy, and Bailey, Opinion by Deasy). </b></span><a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/bpgetopn.pl?OPINION=11-075P">Click
here: USBAP1 Opinion 11-075P</a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i>Collateral valuation date is flexible; post-petition interest paid to oversecured creditor at default rate and compounded:</i></b></span><br />
<br />
<div>
<a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/bpgetopn.pl?OPINION=11-079P">Click
here: USBAP1 Opinion 11-079P</a></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 13.45pt; margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,</b> <b>Appellant / Cross-Appellee, v.</b> <b>CITY OF BOSTON,</b> <b>Appellee,</b> <b>and</b> <b>SW BOSTON HOTEL VENTURE, LLC, et al.,</b> </u><b><u>Appellees / Cross-Appellants [Debtors]</u>,</b> <b>BAP NOS. MB 11-079, (BAP 1<sup>st</sup> Circuit October 1, 2012)(Before Haines, Deasy, and Tester, Opinion by Deasy). </b><u>HELD</u>: BAP AFFIRMS the Default Rate Calculation, REVERSES the 506(b) Order and the Prudential Claim Order, and REMANDS. <u>SUMMARY</u>: The BAP held that they will follow the "flexible" approach rather than a fixed date for valuation of collateral for purposes of Section 506(b), and in so doing the creditor's debt was determined to be oversecured and the creditor entitled to be paid then post-petition interest, said interest paid at the contract's default rate and compounded. </span><br />
<br />
<b><i>Where valuation impacted plan, debtor given a chance to amend: </i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/bpgetopn.pl?OPINION=11-087U">Click
here: USBAP1 Opinion 11-087U</a> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; margin: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,</b> <b>Appellant / Cross-Appellee, v.</b> <b>CITY OF BOSTON,</b> <b>Appellee,</b> <b>and</b> <b>SW BOSTON HOTEL VENTURE, LLC, et al.,</b> </u><b><u>Appellees / Cross-Appellants [Debtors]</u>,</b> <b>BAP NO. MB 11-087, BAP 1<sup>st</sup> Circuit October 1, 2012)(Before Haines, Deasy, and Tester, Per Curiam).</b> Prudential Insurance Company of America appealed from the bankruptcy court’s decision and accompanying order confirming the Debtors’ Modified First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization and the order overruling Prudential’s objection to confirmation of the Plan. Because the BAP’s above opinion and reversal altered the landscape dramatically, its practical result is a significant increase in the amount of Prudential’s claim, which, in turn, impacts the evaluation of the Plan’s terms under §1129. Thus, the BAP vacated the Confirmation Orders, so as to afford the Debtors an opportunity to amend the Plan’s terms to account for the increased amount of Prudential’s claim (per the above opinion) and the resulting pay out to Prudential and/or for the bankruptcy court to fashion alternative forms of relief for Prudential that would not unravel the reorganization. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span>
<b><i>Creditor may move forward on discharge complaint, not time-barred:</i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b> </b></span><a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/bpgetopn.pl?OPINION=11-048P">Click
here: USBAP1 Opinion 11-048P</a><b style="font-family: inherit;"> </b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><u>GONSALVES,</u></b><u> <b>Plaintiff-<wbr></wbr>Appellant, v.</b> <b>BELICE [Debtor], Defendant, Appellee</b></u><b>, BAP NO. MB 11-048, (BAP 1<sup>st</sup> Cir. October 15, 2012) (Before Lamoutte, Haines, and Deasy, Opinion by Haines) [No brief filed for Appellee, Appellant Pro Se]. </b>Gonsalves, a <i>pro se</i> creditor, appealed: (1) the order granting the motion of the debtor to dismiss Gonsalves’ adversary complaint; and (2) the order denying Gonsalves’ motion for relief from judgment. As the BAP concluded that the dismissal was not only beyond the scope of their prior remand but was also legal error, they VACATED the orders and REMANDED the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In a prior opinion, the BAP found that the debtor's notice to the creditor was so defective as to defeat notice of the bankruptcy case or discharge bar date, allowing then the creditor to go forward on one of his two counts challenging the dischargability of his debt, with the Section 727 count being time barred but the </span>§<span style="font-family: inherit;">523(a) count not. Thus, the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the </span>§<span style="font-family: inherit;">523(a) count exceeded the scope of the prior remand i.e. </span>BAP had concluded in its prior opinion <span style="font-family: inherit;">that the creditor's complaint presented a plausible case for relief under §523(a)(3). Therefore, it was error for the bankruptcy court to dismiss this claim on the grounds that he failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On remand, debtor again sought dismissal under </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Rule 12(b)(6)</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">, this time based on his argument that creditor had failed to file the §523(a)(3) count within one year of his discharge, despite having received notice a month prior to that anniversary. Debtor erroneously contended</span><b style="font-family: inherit;"> </b><span style="font-family: inherit;">that the one year limitation set by §727(e) for discharge revocation actions applied to the creditor's §523(a)(3) claim. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Creditor argued that because the BAP's remand confined the bankruptcy court to consideration of the merits of his §523(a)(3) count, it was error to expand its scope to include a request for dismissal based on timeliness. He contends that it was also error to dismiss his complaint for failure to file a response to the dismissal motion when he had, in fact, filed an objection. He lastly reiterates that his complaint was not time-barred. The BAP agreed. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<b><i>Construction debt was discharged, no fraudulent intent: </i></b><br />
<br />
<div>
<a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/bpgetopn.pl?OPINION=12-017U">Click
here: USBAP1 Opinion 12-017U</a></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; margin: 0px 0.4in 0px 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; margin: 0px 0.5in 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><b>BELLAS PAVERS, LLC,</b> <b>Plaintiff-Appellant, v.</b> </u><b><u>STEWART [Debtor], Defendant-Appellee</u>, BAP NO. MB 12-017;</b> <b>(Before</b> <b>Lamoutte, Kornreich, and Cabán, Opinion by Cabán)(BAP 1<sup>st</sup> Circuit October 18, 2012). </b>This case arises out of an adversary proceeding brought by Bellas Pavers, LLC seeking to except from discharge a debt owed by Stewart for masonry services. The bankruptcy court conducted a trial, and at the close of Bellas’ case, Stewart moved for a judgment on partial findings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), which the Court granted and entered judgment in favor of Stewart. Thereafter, Bellas filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) requesting a new trial, or in the alternative, that the bankruptcy court reopen the original trial, enter new findings of facts and conclusions of law, find in Bellas’ favor on all counts, and enter a judgment of non-dischargeability. The bankruptcy court denied the motion for a new trial, and Bellas appealed. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Controversy centers on the construction of a stone patio and retaining wall where the debtor failed to pay a sub-contractor even though the debtor was paid for the job. The bankruptcy court conducted a trial. After plaintiff put on two witnesses, Stewart moved for a judgment on partial findings pursuant to Rule 52(c), asserting three grounds: (1) lack of personal liability for Premier’s actions (the agreement was between Bellas and Premier, not Stewart); (2) lack of evidence that Stewart had fraudulent intent when he entered into the agreement with Bellas on Premier’s behalf; and (3) lack of evidence that Bellas had reasonably relied on Stewart’s representations. As to the question of fraudulent intent, the bankruptcy court stated as follows: It’s perfectly consistent [with] the evidence that Mr. Stewart did, in fact, intend when he entered into the contract with Bellas on behalf of Premier to have Bella[s] paid. I have nothing in my record that indicates that that was a lie. . . I don’t know what happened that Premier/Stewart didn’t pay Bellas Pavers. Maybe they just ran out of money. I don’t know what they did with the money, but that doesn’t prove that it should be a debt [sic] will be – which would be nondischargeable in bankruptcy.” Given these facts, the bankruptcy court granted Stewart’s motion under Rule 52(c), and entered judgment in his favor. Thus, based upon the record, we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err by not inferring fraudulent intent from the totality of the circumstances. </span><u style="font-family: inherit;">HELD</u><span style="font-family: inherit;">: AFFIRMED. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES DENIED: </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Stewart filed a separate motion under Bankruptcy Rule 8020 seeking damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs, incurred in defending this appeal. Bellas objects to the motion. Bankruptcy Rule 8020 provides: If a . . . bankruptcy appellate panel determines that an appeal . . . is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion . . . and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee. While there is no formula for determining whether an appeal is frivolous, courts generally consider several factors, including: the appellant’s bad faith, whether the argument presented on appeal is meritless </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">in toto</i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">, and whether only part of the argument is frivolous. A court may consider whether the appellant’s argument addresses the issues on appeal, fails to cite any authority, cites inapplicable authority, makes unsubstantiated factual assertions, asserts bare legal conclusions, or misrepresents the record. However, “[Bankruptcy] Rule 8020 is far from a strict liability model. More than just a losing argument is necessary to support a conclusion that an appeal is frivolous. An appeal is frivolous if the result is obvious or the arguments supporting the appeal are wholly without merit. Such is not the case herein.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-34666445580371118922012-11-06T15:09:00.002-05:002012-11-06T15:09:53.243-05:00Federal Cases (First Circuit and NH District Court): October and November 2012<br />
<div class="Default">
<b>Recent Cases from the First Circuit Court of Appeals and
New Hampshire District Court: </b></div>
<div class="Default">
<b>October and November 2012.</b></div>
<div class="Default">
<b><u><i><br /></i></u></b></div>
<div class="Default">
<b><u><i>FIRST CIRCUIT: </i></u></b></div>
<div class="Default">
<br /></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">LABOR &
EMPLOYMENT LAW </span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><b>Nat'l Labor
Relations Bd. v. Solutia, Inc., No. 12-1129</b> In a labor dispute arising from
an employer's decision to consolidate two of its product testing labs at
different locations on its worksite into one lab, the decision of the National
Labor Relations Board (Board), finding that the employer had violated sections
8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, is affirmed where: 1) the
Board made no error of law in reaching its decision and its findings were
supported by substantial evidence in the record; 2) the Board did not err in its
conclusion that the employer did not violate the collective bargaining
agreement; and 3) the challenges to the Board's remedial order by both the
employer and the union are either premature or without merit.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">ANTITRUST
& TRADE REGULATION, INSURANCE LAW </span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><b>Saint
Consulting Group, Inc. v. Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co. Inc., No.
12-1569</b> In plaintiff's suit against its insurer for breach of duty to
defend in an underlying lawsuit, district court's dismissal of the complaint is
affirmed where the antitrust claims in the underlying action were expressly
excluded by an exclusion in the policy and the policy coverage was precluded as
to the other claims because they arose out of plaintiff's alleged restraint of
trade. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">CIVIL
PROCEDURE, INJURY & TORT LAW </span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><b>Hatch v.
Trail King Indus., Inc., No. 12-1473</b> In plaintiff's suit against a
manufacturer of a trailer involved in his accident at his workplace, district
court's denial of plaintiff's motion to add a claim for unfair and deceptive
trade practices following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, is affirmed
where the doctrine of claim preclusion applies to this case and plaintiff may
not now bring this claim because of the failure to appeal from the denial of the
motion to amend. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">ELECTIONS,
GOVERNMENT LAW, REMEDIES </span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><b>Colon-Marrero
v. Conty-Perez, No. 12-2145</b> In plaintiff's suit claiming that Article 6.012
of Puerto Rico Law No. 78 prohibited the government from removing her from the
voting roll for the upcoming election of Puerto Rico's only elected federal
officer, district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed and
remanded where: 1) the National Voter Registration Act by its terms does not
apply to Puerto Rico, and it therefore cannot provide any relief for plaintiff
in this <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="page-break-before: always;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">case; and 2)
the record and the parties' arguments fail to demonstrate that such
extraordinary relief could be granted only weeks before the election without
creating uncertainty and confusion in the Puerto Rico electoral process.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="page-break-before: always;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="page-break-before: always;">
</div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">IMMIGRATION
LAW </span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><b>Rojas-Perez
v. Holder, No. 11-1047</b> A Mexican citizens' petition for review of an order
of removal is denied where the BIA's decision was reasonable and adequately
supported by substantial evidence.</span></div>
<div class="Default">
<br /></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">CIVIL RIGHTS,
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, REMEDIES </span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><b>Trainor v.
HEI Hospitality, LLC, No. 12-1152</b> In plaintiff's age discrimination and
retaliation suit against his former employer, judgment of the district court is
affirmed for the most part, but vacated where: 1) the $500,000 award for
emotional distress damages is vastly out of proportion, even after remittitur;
and 2) the district court must adjust its award of multiplied damages on
remand. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">CRIMINAL LAW
& PROCEDURE, SENTENCING, EVIDENCE </span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><b>US v.
Green, No. 11-2157</b> Defendant's conviction and sentence for his
participation in an oxycodone distribution conspiracy, are affirmed where: 1)
any error in the district court's refusal to suppress evidence that the DEA
agents obtained from defendant's cellular phone, without a warrant, two weeks
after they seized the phone, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; 2) there
was no abuse of discretion in admitting the challenged witness testimony; 3) the
evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction; and 4) the
district court did not err in calculating the drug quantity attributable to
defendant as a result of his participation in the conspiracy.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><b><i>NEW
HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COURT CASES:</i></b></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">SOCIAL
SECURITY APPEAL </span></div>
<div class="Default">
<b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 12.9pt; text-indent: 4in;">Susan
Gould, v. <u>Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration
[Case No. 11-CV-485-SM]</u>,</b></div>
<div class="Default">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 17px; text-indent: 384px;">Opinion
No. 2012 DNH 182 - </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 17px; text-indent: 384px;">Finding
of no disability affirmed (Steven J. McAuliffe, District Judge). Good review
and analysis of a social security disability claim appeal and the burdens of
proof and standards of review on appeal.</span></div>
Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-62773502881489320532011-08-17T08:45:00.000-04:002011-08-17T08:45:20.078-04:00Federal Rules changes coming in December 2011.<div class="maincontent" sizcache="5" sizset="0"><div style="font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><strong><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><em>[from the US Court's web site].</em></span></strong></strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><strong><strong>August 2009 - December 2011 Amendments (Effective Dec. 1, 2011)</strong> </strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><strong>Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence: August 2009</strong></strong> </div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><strong></strong></strong></div><div sizcache="5" sizset="0" style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong sizcache="5" sizset="0"><strong sizcache="5" sizset="0"><img alt="Rules Timeline Step 6" height="192px" src="http://www.uscourts.gov/Libraries/Banner_Images/Rules_Timeline_Step_6.sflb.ashx" width="597px" /></strong></strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><strong>Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure</strong></strong> </div><ul sizcache="0" sizset="54"><li style="font-size: 12px;">Appellate Rule 4 (clarifies 60-day appeal deadline in cases where U.S., federal agency, or federal employee is a party) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Appellate Rule 40 (clarifies 45-day rehearing deadline in cases where U.S., federal agency, or federal employees is a party) </li>
</ul><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"></div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><strong>Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure</strong></strong></div><ul sizcache="0" sizset="56"><li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 1004.2 (republication of a new rule requiring entity filing a chapter 15 petition to state the country of the debtor's main interest, filer to list each country in which a case involving debtor is pending, and setting deadline for challenging the statement asserting the country of the debtor's main interest) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 2003 (requires the filing of a statement upon adjourning a meeting of creditors or equity security holders) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 2019 (expands the scope of the rule’s disclosure requirements by requiring disclosure in chapter 9 and chapter 11 cases by all committees or groups that consist of more than one creditor or equity security holder, as well as entities or that represent more than one creditor or equity security holder. It also authorizes the court to require disclosure by an individual party in interest when knowledge of that party’s economic stake in the debtor would assist the court in evaluating the party’s arguments) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 3001 (prescribes in greater detail the supporting information required to accompany certain proofs of claim) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 (new rule implements § 1322(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, which permits a chapter 13 debtor to cure a default and maintain payments of a home mortgage) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 4004 (permits a party under limited circumstances to seek an extension of time to object to a debtor’s discharge after the time for objecting has expired) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 6003 (clarifies that the requirement of a 21-day waiting period before a court can enter certain orders at the beginning of a case, including an order approving employment of counsel, does not prevent the court from specifying an effective date for the order that is earlier than the date of its issuance) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Form 1 (implements new Bankruptcy Rule 1004.2) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Forms 9A - 9I (conforming amendments to the pending amendment of Bankruptcy Rule 2003(e)) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Form 10 (clarifies that, consistent with Rule 3001(c), writings supporting a claim or evidencing perfection of a security interest - not just summaries - must be attached to the proof of claim) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Form 25A (changes the effective date consistent with 2009 time-computation rules amendments) </li>
</ul><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"></div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><strong>Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure</strong><sup><span style="font-size: 10px;">1</span></sup></strong></div><ul sizcache="1" sizset="9"><li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 1 (expands the definition of “telephone” and “telephonic” to include technologies that enable live, contemporaneous voice conversations) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 3 (authorizes consideration of complaints and issuances of arrest warrants and summonses based on information submitted by reliable electronic means as provided for in proposed new Rule 4.1) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 4 (authorizes consideration of complaints and issuances of arrest warrants and summonses based on information submitted by reliable electronic means as provided for in proposed new Rule 4.1. Also authorizes the return of warrants by reliable electronic means) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 4.1 (new rule incorporates provisions of Criminal Rule 41 that allow a warrant to be issued based on information submitted by reliable electronic means and extends those procedures to complaints, arrest warrants, and summonses) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 6 (provides that a grand jury return may be taken by video conference) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 9 (authorizes consideration of complaints and issuances of arrest warrants and summonses based on information submitted by reliable electronic means as provided for in proposed new Rule 4.1) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 32 (technical and conforming style amendment) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 40 (permits the defendant, upon consent, to appear by video conference in a proceeding on arrest for failure to appear in another district) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 41 (deleted provisions now covered by new Rule 4.1. Also authorizes the return of warrants by reliable electronic means) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 43 (permits, with the defendant’s written consent, the arraignment, trial, and sentencing in misdemeanor cases to be conducted by video conference) </li>
<li sizcache="1" sizset="9" style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 49 (authorizes local rules permitting papers to be filed, signed, or verified by electronic means) <div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"></div></li>
</ul><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><strong>Federal Rules of Evidence</strong></strong></div><ul sizcache="0" sizset="78"><li style="font-size: 12px;">Restyled Evidence Rules 101-1103 (make the rules simpler and easier to read and understand without changing substantive meaning) </li>
</ul><div style="font-size: 12px;"><strong><strong><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/PendingRules/SupremeCourt042611.aspx" jquery1313583560156="71">Amendments Approved by Supreme Court</a> (April 2011) </strong></strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><strong><strong><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/PublishedRules/JudConfReportSept10.aspx" jquery1313583560156="72">Amendments Approved by Judicial Conference</a> (September 2010) </strong></strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><strong><strong><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/PublishedRules/JudConfReportSept10.aspx" jquery1313583560156="73">Amendments Approved by Standing Committee</a> (June 2010) </strong></strong></div><blockquote sizcache="1" sizset="14"><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/Memo_Bench_BK_CR.pdf" jquery1313583560156="74">Memorandum to the Bench, Bar, and Public on Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and Criminal Procedure August 2009</a> (pdf)</strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/Memo_Bench_EV.pdf" jquery1313583560156="75">Memorandum to the Bench, Bar, and Public on Proposed Style Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence August 2009</a> (pdf)</strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/Brochure.pdf" jquery1313583560156="76">Brochure Summarizing Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules August 2009</a> (pdf)</strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong>Reports of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules</strong></div><ul sizcache="0" sizset="79"><strong></strong>
<li style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/BK12-2008.pdf" jquery1313583560156="77">Dec 2008</a> (pdf) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/BK5-2009.pdf" jquery1313583560156="78">May 2009</a> (pdf) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Proposed Rules Amendments (<a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/BK_Rules.wpd" jquery1313583560156="79">WP</a>) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Proposed Rules and Forms Amendments (<a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/BK_Rules_Forms_Amendments.pdf" jquery1313583560156="80">pdf</a>) </li>
</ul><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong>Reports of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules</strong></div><ul sizcache="0" sizset="83"><li style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/CR5-2008.pdf" jquery1313583560156="81">May 2008</a> (pdf) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/CR5-2009.pdf" jquery1313583560156="82">May 2009</a> (pdf) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Proposed Rules Amendments (<a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/CR_Rules.wpd" jquery1313583560156="83">WP</a>) (<a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/CR_Rules_Amendments.pdf" jquery1313583560156="84">pdf</a>) </li>
</ul><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/EV_Report.pdf" jquery1313583560156="85">Report of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules</a> May 2009 (pdf)</strong></div><ul sizcache="0" sizset="86"><li style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/EV_Rules_101-415.doc" jquery1313583560156="86">Proposed Restyled Evidence Rules 101-415</a> (Word) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/EV_Rules_501-706.doc" jquery1313583560156="87">Proposed Restyled Evidence Rules 501-706</a> (Word) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/EV_Rules_801-1103.doc" jquery1313583560156="88">Proposed Restyled Evidence Rules 801-1103</a> (Word) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed0809/EV_Rules.pdf" jquery1313583560156="89">Proposed Restyled Evidence Rules 101-1103</a> (pdf) </li>
</ul><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/ResearchingRules/Comments/Proposed0809Comments.aspx" jquery1313583560156="90">Comments Submitted</a></strong></div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10px;"><sup>1 </sup>The Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules withdrew the proposed amendment to Criminal Rule 32.1 (permits the defendant, upon request, to participate via video conference in proceedings involving revocation or modification of probation or supervised release), following the public comment period. The advisory committee also withdrew the companion amendment to Criminal Rule 43 that contained the cross-reference to Rule 32.1</span>.</div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><strong></strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><strong>August 2010 - December 2012 (Effective December 1, 2012)</strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><strong>Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and Criminal Procedure: August 2010</strong></div><div sizcache="5" sizset="1" style="font-size: 12px;"><strong sizcache="5" sizset="1"><img alt="Rules Timeline Step 4" height="170px" src="http://www.uscourts.gov/Libraries/Banner_Images/rules_timeline_step4.sflb.ashx" width="583px" /></strong></div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><strong>Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure</strong></div><ul sizcache="0" sizset="90"><li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 3001 (requires more information supporting proofs of claim when the claim is based on an open-end or revolving consumer credit agreement) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 7054 (increases the time for the clerk to notify a party of taxation of costs and the time to object to the clerks actions) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Rule 7056 (establishes a default deadline to file a summary judgment motion) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Official Form 10 (requires more information on claims) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Bankruptcy Official Form 25A (changes the effective date provision to reflect changes in time periods in other rules) </li>
</ul><div style="font-size: 12px;"><strong>Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure</strong></div><ul sizcache="0" sizset="95"><li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 5 (clarifies the international extradition process) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 37 (new rule articulating procedures for obtaining an indicative ruling@) </li>
<li style="font-size: 12px;">Criminal Rule 58 (conforming amendment to Criminal Rule 5) </li>
</ul><div style="font-size: 12px;"> <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/PendingRules/0611STCommAmendments.aspx" jquery1313583560156="91">Amendments Approved by Standing Committee (June 2011)</a></div><div style="font-size: 12px;"> <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/PublishedRules/Aug12Feb16Amendments.aspx" jquery1313583560156="92">Amendments Published for Public Comment (August 2010)</a></div></div>Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-61062513838350535602011-07-23T10:58:00.014-04:002011-07-23T11:08:14.199-04:00New Hampshire's New Circuit Court System<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border-collapse: separate; color: black; font: small 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><em>From the Court's web site:</em><br />
<br />
The New Hampshire Circuit Court began operation on July 1, 2011 merging the District and Probate Courts and the Family Division into a single, streamlined system designed to improve services to both the public and the Bar while producing significant cost savings. The merger is the most significant overhaul of the New Hampshire Judicial Branch since the early 1980s, when the legislature unified all the state courts under a single administrative and financial structure.<br />
<br />
The Circuit Court, which will now include District, Probate and Family Divisions, will handle 90 percent of all cases filed in the state court system. Legislation establishing the Circuit Court (HB 609) was signed by Gov. John Lynch on May 16, 2011.<br />
<br />
Jurisdictions for the district, probate and family divisions of the Circuit Court will be the same as the prior District and Probate Courts and Family Division. Court locations, addresses, telephone numbers, rules, filing procedures and scheduling will also remain the same in the District, Probate and Family Divisions of the Circuit Court.<br />
<br />
<em><strong>[click below for a map of the new Circuit Court locations and which counties the Circuit Courts cover]</strong></em><br />
<a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/2011/CircuitCourt_County-Map-Court-Survey.pdf" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">There are 10 Circuit Court</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> s,</span><br />
<span class="Apple-converted-space"></span>one for each of the state's counties.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
<strong><em><span class="Apple-converted-space">[click below for Circuit Court Management Chart]</span></em></strong><br />
<span class="Apple-converted-space"></span><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/2011/CircuitCourtManagement.pdf" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">Each circuit will have at least one Circuit Court clerk</a>. <br />
<br />
Some of the state's largest counties have more than one Circuit Court clerk assigned to manage divisions in more than one city or town. <br />
<br />
The locations of the district, family and probate divisions are now circuit court locations.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>[click below for the locations of each of the Circuit Courts].</em></strong></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border-collapse: separate; color: black; font: small 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><strong><em><br />
</em></strong><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/2011/CircuitCourtSites.pdf" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">circuit court locations</a>.<br />
<br />
In Cheshire County, the marital division will continue to operate as part of the Cheshire County Superior Court; in all other counties, the Circuit Court Family Division will operate at the same locations as the current Family Division.<br />
Judges who now come under the Circuit Court will continue to preside over the same types of cases for which they were appointed prior to the July 1, 2011 merger.<br />
<br />
Questions about the Circuit Court should be directed to the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/index.htm" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">circuit court clerks</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>or to Administrator Gina Apicelli at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:gapicelli@courts.state.nh.us" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">gapicelli@courts.state.nh.us</a>.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial;"><strong><em>Links:</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border-collapse: separate; color: black; font: small 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/index.htm" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">DISTRICT DIVISION</a><br />
<a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/probate/index.htm" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">PROBATE DIVISION</a><br />
<a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/fdpp/index.htm" style="color: #006699; text-decoration: underline;">FAMILY DIVISION</a></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial;"><strong><em>Locations and Justices:</em></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial;"> </span><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/index.htm#circuit">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/index.htm#circuit</a><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial;"><strong><em>Circuit Court Administrative Orders: </em></strong></span><br />
<a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/circuitcourt/adminorders.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/circuitcourt/adminorders.htm</a>Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-45982117302984420982011-07-10T08:36:00.002-04:002011-07-10T08:37:53.919-04:00Federal District Court and BankruptcySurprisingly, you may encounter many bankruptcy issues at the Federal District Court Level. <br />
<br />
First, when a litigant determines to take an appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court, they have the <em>option</em> to appeal to the Federal District Court or the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit. <br />
<br />
If you take your appeal to the District Court, the case will be assigned to one District Court Judge to hear and determine the appeal. If you choose to appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, your appeal will be determined by a panel of three bankruptcy judges from the First Circuit, and the judge who decided your case may not participate in that particular panel.<br />
<br />
Strategically, there are many reasons why one would choose the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel over the District Court, or vice versa, to hear and determine an appeal.<br />
<br />
Secondly, where challenges to the debtor's discharge of debt are normally adjudicated by the Bankruptcy Court (under the standing order of reference), the District Court may hear them as well in certain circumstances. For example, the Internal Revenue in foreclosing a federal tax lien on real property would file its complaint at the District Court, and may in that ligation challenge the debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(1)(C) for alleged, willful tax evasion. That particular piece of litigation for a bankruptcy debtor is a "double whammy" i.e. the IRS is foreclosing a federal tax lien to take the home, and then is alleging that the taxes that would otherwise have been discharged are not discharged by the discharge order entered in the bankruptcy case.Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-23008240432769390262011-05-11T16:41:00.000-04:002011-05-13T16:41:27.126-04:00Rule 11 Amendment pending (Federal Practice)<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><strong><em>Information from the Federal Bar Practice Section:</em></strong></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> Congress is now considering a proposal to modify, through legislation, the provisions of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposal is contained in H.R. 966, the proposed “Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2011.” On March 11, 2011, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution received testimony concerning H.R. 966 from three witnesses supporting and opposing the bill. The Federal Litigation Section’s Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Trial Practice is currently studying the bill and other proposals to modify or retain Rule 11 as currently written or otherwise to regulate the conduct of counsel and litigants in federal litigation. They seek your comments.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="text-decoration: none;"></span></span></u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Proposed Amendments in H.R. 966</span></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">The H.R. 966 bill would repeal amendments that the Judicial Conference of the United States proposed for adoption effective in 1993, thereby in part reinstating an earlier version of Rule 11 that had been in force between 1983 and 1993. It would also add a new provision for punitive monetary sanctions to be paid into court.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Under the bill, there would no longer be a “safe harbor” provision that allows an adverse party to withdraw or modify a challenged pleading or other paper before a sanctions motion can be filed or otherwise presented to the court. <i>See</i> Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). That safe harbor clause was adopted effective in 1993.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">The bill would also provide that sanctions awards would once again be mandatory, rather than discretionary, in cases where a court has found that a pleading or other paper was signed without adequate factual or legal grounds. Sanctions had been mandatory from 1983 to 1993. The bill would specify that, in addition to any other sanctions the court might impose, “the sanction shall consist of an order to pay to the party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">In doing so, the bill would repeal the current provision in Rule 11(c)(2) that that fees and costs “may” be awarded “if warranted.” In place of that provision, the bill would further authorize punitive monetary awards, to be paid into the court, “if warranted for effective deterrence.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Testimony Supporting and Opposing the H.R. 966 Bill</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">According to testimony on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, the changes are necessary because frivolous lawsuits and staggering litigation costs are creating a climate of fear for America’s small businesses. In their view, the current “safe harbor” means that preparing a motion for sanctions may serve only to increase the costs for the moving party – which is, generally, the defendant. And even if a plaintiff does not withdraw his or her claims for relief, and even if the court finds them to be frivolous, the discretionary nature of the current sanctions provision means that the court may choose not to impose any sanction other than dismissing the case. These trade associations also believe that the current version of Rule 11 discourages judges from imposing sanctions for the purpose of compensating defendants for their attorney’s fees and costs.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">In opposition to the H.R. 966 bill, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center has testified that the 1993 amendments of Rule 11 were adopted in the face of studies suggesting that the 1983 version of Rule 11 was deterring the filing of meritorious cases. Additionally, in practice, civil rights and employment discrimination plaintiffs were impacted the most severely under the earlier version of Rule 11 as adopted in 1983. Studies also showed that plaintiffs had been the targets of sanctions far more often than defendants, even though the terms of Rule 11 apply to all pleadings and other papers – including a defendant’s answer containing denials and affirmative defenses. Scholars and practitioners had noted that the 1983 version actually increased costs and delays by encouraging “the Rambo-like use of Rule 11 by too many lawyers,” and that the resulting increase in sanctions-oriented motions practice had led to a breakdown of civility and professionalism. This professor cited a 1991 study by the Federal Judicial Center, which revealed that few judges polled thought the then-current 1983 version of the rule was “very effective” in deterring groundless pleadings. In a 2005 survey of 278 district judges polled by the Federal Judicial Center, more than 80% of the judges said that “Rule 11 is needed and it is just right as it stands now.”</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Call for Comment and Proposals from the Federal Litigation Bar</span></i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">The Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Trial Practice seeks your comments. Comments may be submitted concerning any of the proposed revisions contained in the H.R. 966 bill; or concerning any other proposals to modify Rule 11; or concerning whether to retain the text of Rule 11 as currently in force. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Comments may be sent to </span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"></span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Rob Kohn and John McCarthy who are co-chairs of the Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Trial Practice. Kohn is also the Secretary and Treasurer of the Federal Litigation Section; and McCarthy is Chapter President of the Southern District of New York chapter of the FBA. Kohn may be reached at <a href="mailto:rkohn@kohnlawgroup.com" title="mailto:rkohn@kohnlawgroup.com">rkohn@kohnlawgroup.com</a> or (310) 461-1520. McCarthy may be reached at <a href="mailto:jmccarthy@sgrlaw.com" title="mailto:jmccarthy@sgrlaw.com">jmccarthy@sgrlaw.com</a> or (212) 907-9703.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Please send them your comments no later than June 30, 2011. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-40925131187790097212011-05-05T08:19:00.001-04:002011-05-05T08:21:15.344-04:00Mediation and MediatorsLitigation is time consuming and EXPENSIVE. You may be right, but can you afford the fight?<br />
<br />
New Hampshire is very active in encouraging litigants to try mediation. <br />
<br />
Mediation can be attempted both before or during a law suit to determine if you and your adversary can resolve your differences in some way. Even the Supreme Court has a mediation program showing it is never too late to try and mediate the differences between the parties, if possible.<br />
<br />
Click here for the mediation programs at all levels in the New Hampshire State Court System:<br />
<a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/adrp/appellate/index.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/adrp/appellate/index.htm</a><br />
<br />
Click here for information on mediation in the New Hampshire Federal Court:<br />
<a href="http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/cp/mediation/default.asp">http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/cp/mediation/default.asp</a><br />
<br />
If you are looking for a trained mediator or training in mediation, you can start here as a good source:<br />
<a href="http://www.hessgehris.com/">http://www.hessgehris.com/</a><br />
<br />
New Hampshire, where I practice, provides FREE mediation as well as paid mediators - your choice. <br />
<br />
Lesson learned: It is never too late to try and resolve the dispute between the parties.Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-78103114981797783782011-05-04T07:30:00.005-04:002011-05-04T07:37:26.775-04:00State Court Rules, Forms and FeesThe internet is a wealth of (free) information. As with all posted information, please check to ensure that the rules, forms or fees are current and have not been updated before utilizing them.<br />
<br />
The bulk of my practice is located in New Hampshire, and here are some valuable resources in New Hampshire regarding rules, forms and fees relevant to the State Court System:<br />
<br />
<strong><u>1. RULES</u></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>Supreme and State Court Rules and Administrative Orders:</strong> <br />
<a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/index.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/index.htm">Click here: NHRULES</a> <br />
<br />
<strong>Municipal and District Court Rules: </strong><br />
<div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/index.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/index.htm">Click here: RULES OF THE DISTRICT AND MUNICIPAL COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE</a> <br />
<br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>Rules of Evidence: </strong><br />
<div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/evid/index.htm">Click here: RULES OF EVIDENCE</a><br />
<br />
<div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/misc/misc-1.htm">Click here: Model Charge: Burden Of Proof Presumption Of Innocence, Reasonable Doubt</a> </div></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>"PAD" - Civil Rules Pilot Project:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/superior/civilrulespp/index.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/superior/civilrulespp/index.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/superior/civilrulespp/index.htm</a></div></div><div><br />
<strong>Rules of Professional Conduct: </strong><br />
<div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/pcon/index.htm">Click here: NEW HAMPSHIRE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT</a> </div><br />
<br />
<strong><u>2. FEES </u></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>New Hampshire Supreme Court Fees: </strong><br />
<div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/forms/Revdfeechanges.pdf">Click here: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/forms/Revdfeechanges.pdf</a> </div><div></div><br />
<strong>New Hampshire Superior Court Fees:</strong></div><div><div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/sror/sror-h3-169.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/sror/sror-h3-169.htm">Click here: FEES</a> <br />
<br />
<strong>District Court Fees:</strong><br />
<div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-3_3.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-3_3.htm">Click here: Rule 3.3. Court fees.</a> </div></div><div></div><div><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><u>3. FORMS</u></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>New Hampshire Supreme Court Forms: </strong><br />
<div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/forms/index.htm">Click here: New Hampshire Judicial Branch - Supreme Court</a> </div><div></div><br />
<strong>New Hampshire Superior Court Forms:</strong><br />
<div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/superior/forms/index.htm">Click here: New Hampshire Judicial Branch - Superior Court</a> <br />
<br />
<strong>District Court Forms:</strong> <br />
<div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/forms/allforms.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/forms/allforms.htm">Click here: New Hampshire Judicial Branch - District Court Forms</a> <br />
<br />
<u><strong>4. WEB SITES</strong></u></div></div></div><div></div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><br />
<strong>Supreme Court:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/welcome.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/welcome.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/welcome.htm</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>Superior Court:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/superior/welcome.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/superior/welcome.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/superior/welcome.htm</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>District Court:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/index.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/index.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/index.htm</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>Probate Court:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/probate/welcome.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/probate/welcome.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/probate/welcome.htm</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>Family Division:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/fdpp/welcome.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/fdpp/welcome.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/fdpp/welcome.htm</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>Mediation:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/adrp/index.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/adrp/index.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/adrp/index.htm</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>NH Judicial System:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/index.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/index.htm">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/index.htm</a></div></div>Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-52912791181370950392011-05-01T05:59:00.078-04:002011-05-04T08:24:22.464-04:00Federal Court Rules, Forms and Fees<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border-collapse: separate; color: black; font: small 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"></span></span><br />
<div class="post-header" style="line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div></div>The internet is a wealth of (free) information. As with all posted information, please ensure that it is current and has not be updated before utilizing any posted forms, fees or rules. The bulk of my practice is located in New Hampshire. Here are some valuable resources relevant to Federal Court practice there:<br />
<br />
<u><strong>1. RULES</strong></u><br />
<br />
<strong>Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/RulesAndForms.aspx">http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/RulesAndForms.aspx</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Federal Bankruptcy Rules:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/">http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/</a><br />
<br />
<strong>NH District Court Local Rules:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ru/local-rules/rules.asp">http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ru/local-rules/rules.asp</a><br />
<br />
<strong>NH Bankruptcy Court Local Rules:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/OrdersRulesForms/neworfs.htm?panel=0">http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/OrdersRulesForms/neworfs.htm?panel=0</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Federal Bankruptcy Code:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sup_01_11.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sup_01_11.html</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Local Rules:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/rules/rules.htm">http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/rules/rules.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/rules/BAP_Rules.pdf">http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/rules/BAP_Rules.pdf</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/rules/LRwFedR.pdf">http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/rules/LRwFedR.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<strong>First Circuit Rules:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/?content=rules.htm">http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/?content=rules.htm</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><strong>2. FORMS</strong></u><br />
<br />
<strong>NH Local District Court Forms:</strong><br />
<div><a href="http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/cp/fuf.asp" title="http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/cp/fuf.asp"><span style="color: purple; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: small;">http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/cp/fuf.asp</span></span></a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>These are Federal District Court Forms used nationally (by category)</strong></div><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/CourtFormsByCategory.aspx" title="http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/CourtFormsByCategory.aspx"><span style="color: purple; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: small;">http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/CourtFormsByCategory.aspx</span></span></a><br />
<br />
<strong>And these are the same forms (by number):</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/CourtForms.aspx" title="http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/CourtForms.aspx"><span style="color: purple; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: small;">http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/CourtForms.aspx</span></span></a><br />
<br />
<strong>National Forms for Bankruptcy:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/BankruptcyForms.aspx" title="http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/BankruptcyForms.aspx"><span style="color: purple; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: small;">http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Forms/BankruptcyForms.aspx</span></span></a><br />
<br />
<strong>NH Local Forms for Bankruptcy:</strong><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/OrdersRulesForms/neworfs.htm" title="http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/OrdersRulesForms/neworfs.htm"><span style="color: purple;">http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/OrdersRulesForms/neworfs.htm</span></a></span><br />
<div><br />
<br />
<u><strong>3. FEES</strong></u><br />
<br />
<strong>First Circuit:</strong><br />
<div><a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/rules/schedule_of_fees.pdf">http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/rules/schedule_of_fees.pdf</a></div></div><br />
<strong>NH District Court Fees:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ci/financial/fee-schedule.asp">http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ci/financial/fee-schedule.asp</a><br />
<div></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>Pre-judgment interest rates:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ci/financial/pre-judgement-intrest-rates.asp">http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ci/financial/pre-judgement-intrest-rates.asp</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>Post-judgment interest rates:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Fees/PostJudgementInterestRates.aspx">http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Fees/PostJudgementInterestRates.aspx</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>NH Bankruptcy Fees:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/FilingResources/filingFees.htm">http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/FilingResources/filingFees.htm</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<br />
<u><strong>4. WEB SITES</strong></u><br />
<br />
<strong>NH Federal District Court:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/">http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/</a></div><div></div><div><br />
<strong>NH Bankruptcy Court:</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/">http://www.nhb.uscourts.gov/</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Bankruptcy Appellate Panel:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/index.php">http://www.bap1.uscourts.gov/index.php</a><br />
<br />
<strong>First Circuit:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/">http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/</a><br />
<br />
<strong>Court Links:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/?content=courtlinks.htm">http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/?content=courtlinks.htm</a><br />
<br />
</div>Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479850184147880186.post-35778737117306700472011-04-30T08:37:00.000-04:002011-04-30T16:51:23.357-04:00<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">New Hampshire Business Court</span></b><br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></b><br />
<br />
New Hampshire has recently added a Business Court to adjudicate commercial transactions. From the NH Judicial Branch web site, <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/adrp/business/index.htm" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/adrp/business/index.htm"><span style="color: #2288bb;">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/adrp/business/index.htm</span></a><br />
<br />
the following helpful information has been provided to understand the business court model:<br />
<br />
<div align="left"><strong> The Business and Commercial Dispute </strong><strong>Docket </strong><br />
<strong> of the </strong><br />
<strong> New Hampshire Superior Court </strong></div><br />
<br />
<strong>I. WHAT IS THE BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESS DOCKET? </strong><br />
In 2008 the Legislature enacted RSA 491:7-a, establishing a Business and Commercial Dispute Docket in the Superior Court. The statute provides that, without limiting the jurisdiction vested in any court in this state, and subject to appointment of a presiding justice by the Governor with the consent of the Executive Council, the Supreme Court may establish by court order, not inconsistent with the statute, a Business and Commercial Dispute docket in the Superior Court. The Business and Commercial docket is presided over by a justice of the Business and Commercial Dispute docket who in the statute's words: “shall be an associate justice of the Superior Court” RSA 491:7-a IV. Under the statute, the workload of the presiding justice of the Business and Commercial Dispute docket “shall be the matters before the docket”. <br />
<br />
However, the statute goes on to provide that “the presiding justice may be assigned to any other matter within the jurisdiction of the superior court or sit by designation on any other court in the same manner as any other associate justice of the superior court as determined to be necessary by the chief justices of the superior and supreme courts.” RSA 491:7-a, V. <br />
<br />
As a practical matter, this means that the Business and Commercial Dispute docket is simply a part of the Superior Court. The Business Court Judge is simply a Superior Court Judge whose responsibilities include handling the complex business matters defined by the statute and sent to the Court by agreement. It is not contemplated that the Business and Commercial Dispute Docket will take all of the Business and Commercial Dispute judge's time. <br />
<br />
The Business Court is located in the Merrimack County Superior Court. <br />
<br />
<strong>A. The Business Court Model </strong><br />
The Business Court model has gained great currency in the last 20 years. Currently a number of states, including North Carolina , California , Maryland , New York , Illinois , Nevada , Arizona , Rhode Island , Georgia , Pennsylvania , Florida , Delaware , Minnesota , South Carolina , Massachusetts and Mississippi , all have some form of a Business and Commercial Dispute Docket. These states have recognized that business cases tend to be more complex and difficult and often raise issues not regularly seen in the Superior Court. If such cases are dealt with earlier by a judge with experience in business litigation, they can often be resolved more quickly, with a correlative positive effect on the rest of the Superior Court docket. Six years ago the American College of Business Court Judges was established under the auspices of Northwestern University , and the group meets to share ideas, and help share best practices among the states. Some of the standing orders and practices in the BCDD are based upon the experience in other states. <strong></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>B. The Purpose of the BC</strong><br />
The purpose of the Business Court in New Hampshire is primarily to meet the needs of the public by dealing with the business disputes that are already in the system or likely to come to the system. It exists as well to ensure that the work of the Superior Court proceeds efficiently by making sure that large business cases do not otherwise slow the progress of the other work of the Superior Court. <br />
<br />
<strong>II. GETTING TO THE BUSINESS COURT </strong><br />
RSA 491:7-a establishes the statutory criteria for cases in the business court. In order for a case to get in the business court, a motion must be filed by the parties. <br />
<br />
It is important to remember that a party <em>cannot be forced to the Business Court </em>. The business court only has jurisdiction under 491:7-a when: <br />
(a) all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the BCDD; <br />
(b) at least one party to the action is a “business entity”; <br />
(c) no party to the action is a consumer; <br />
(d) if the action involves a claim for money damages, the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000; and <br />
(e) the principal claim or claims arise from the following: <br />
(1) breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, misrepresentation, business tort, or statutory violations arising out of business dealings or transactions; <br />
(2) transactions under the Uniform Commercial Code; <br />
(3) the purchase, sale or lease of commercial real or personal property or security interests therein; <br />
(4) surety bonds; <br />
(5) franchisee/franchisor relationships and liabilities; <br />
(6) malpractice claims of non-medical professionals in connection with rendering services to a business enterprise; <br />
(7) real estate title petitions; <br />
(8) shareholder derivative actions; <br />
(9) commercial class actions <br />
(10) commercial bank transactions; <br />
(11) sections relating to the internal affairs or governance; dissolution or liquidation rights or obligations between and among owners, including shareholders, partners, or members; or liability or indemnity of managers, including officers, directors, managers, trustees, or members or partners functioning as managers, of corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability companies or partnerships, professional associations, business trusts, joint ventures, or other business enterprises; <br />
(12) business insolvencies and receiverships; <br />
(13) other complex disputes of a business or commercial nature. <br />
Although the BCDD is located in Merrimack County, it has authority to accept cases filed or which could be filed in any superior court throughout the State of New Hampshire. By agreeing to submit a dispute to the BCDD, the parties are deemed to have consented to venue in Merrimack County. <br />
<br />
III. <strong>MEDIATION IN THE BUSINESS COURT </strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>Who may participate in Mediation? </em></strong><br />
Parties to an on-going case pending in any Superior Court (including the business court) may mediate pursuant to Superior Court Rule 170. The parties may choose a neutral from the standard Superior Court Rule 170 roster of neutrals, or parties who have a business dispute may use the Business Court specialized mediator roster. To use this roster, at least one party must be a business entity as defined in RSA 491:7-a, at least one party is a business entity formed or organized under New Hampshire law or having its principal place of business in New Hampshire and no party is a consumer, as that term is defined in RSA 491:7-a, with respect to the matter in dispute. <br />
<br />
<strong><em>Who are the mediators? </em></strong><br />
A panel of specialized mediators who have been approved to mediate Business Court Disputes may be found at <a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/" title="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/"><span style="color: #2288bb;">http://www.courts.state.nh.us/</span></a>. Then click on the Office of Mediation and Arbitration link and then <br />
“Business Court” for a list and to find their biographies. <br />
<br />
<strong><em>How does the process work? </em></strong><br />
<br />
1. Mediation shall take place when the parties and their counsel jointly determine that it shall be most productive. Each case is different. It may be early in the case, or it may be closer to trial, as the parties and counsel agree. Parties/counsel shall confer and select a neutral third party to conduct mediation. If the parties cannot agree on who the mediator, the Business Court Judge will select the mediator for the parties at their request, from the approved list of specialized mediators for the business court. <br />
<br />
2. If a mediator is chosen from the list of approved mediators for the business court it is important to note that they are all “market rate” neutrals. This means that they will be compensated at the hourly rate posted on their bio sheets for the work that they are doing in the case. There are no volunteer mediators on this specialized roster. Parties may select a neutral who is not on the court's lists of approved neutrals if the parties agree on the choice of the neutral.<br />
<br />
3. Once the parties choose the neutral or the court assigns the neutral, the parties shall contact the neutral and request that he/she provide the parties with a schedule of fees and expenses and dates and times when they are available to conduct the initial mediation session.<br />
<br />
4. Unless the court orders or the parties otherwise agree, the neutral's fees and expenses shall be apportioned and paid in equal shares by each party, and shall be due and payable according to fee arrangements agreed to directly by the parties and the neutral. Fees and expenses paid to the neutral shall be allowed and taxed as costs in accordance with Superior Court Rule 87(a). <br />
<br />
5. If the neutral is chosen at the structuring conference, either by the parties and counsel, or by the court, the parties and counsel shall, within 10 days after the date of the structuring conference, contact the neutral and schedule the mediation session.<br />
<br />
6. Except for the date by which the ADR procedure has been agree to be completed, the structuring conference order regarding ADR may thereafter be amended by agreement of the parties by filing an amended Stipulation with the court. <br />
<br />
7. Upon receipt of notice of appointment in a case, the neutral shall disclose any circumstances likely to create a conflict of interest, the appearance of a conflict of interest, a reasonable inference of bias, or prevent the process from proceeding as scheduled. If the neutral withdraws, has a conflict of interest, or is otherwise unavailable, another shall be agreed to by the parties or appointed by the court. <br />
<br />
<em>Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding.</em><br />
1. The neutral shall advise the parties in writing of the schedule for submission and exchange of mediation summaries. Unless the neutral advises otherwise, each party shall exchange a summary, not to exceed five pages, of the significant aspects of its case. The parties may also attach to the summary copies of pertinent documents. Upon receipt of a party's submission, any party may send additional information responding to that submission. Unless the neutral advises otherwise, all submissions shall be exchanged with opposing counsel and shall contain a statement of compliance with the exchange requirement. The parties may, by agreement, submit confidential mediation summaries to the mediator, which shall not be shared with the opposing parties and counsel. <br />
<br />
2. Thirty days before the date of the first scheduled ADR session, each party must certify to the mediator that party's readiness to proceed on the scheduled date or request that the mediator reschedule the ADR session. At any time, upon written request of a party for good cause shown, the mediator may reschedule the ADR session for a date prior to the date set forth in the structuring conference order for completion of the mediation. <br />
<br />
3. A corporation, partnership, or other entity that is a party, and a liability insurer that is defending the action, must each be represented by a person, other than outside counsel, who has settlement authority and authority to enter into stipulations. With the agreement of all parties and the mediator, any person having an interest that may be materially affected by the outcome of the proceeding may be invited to attend the session in person or by counsel. Upon agreement by the parties and with consent of the mediator, a party or counsel may attend the mediation session electronically. <br />
<br />
4. Within 15 days after the conclusion of mediation, the plaintiff(s) or plaintiff(s)' counsel (unless otherwise agreed) must report the results of the process to the court in writing. The report may not disclose the neutral's assessment of any aspect of the case or substantive matters discussed during the session or sessions except as is required to report the information required by this paragraph. The report (form no. NHJB-2488-S) contains the following items: <br />
<br />
(a) the date on which the session or sessions were held including the starting and finishing times; <br />
<br />
(b) the names and addresses of all persons attending, showing their role in the session and specifically identifying the representative of each party who had decision-making authority; <br />
<br />
(c) a summary of any substitute arrangement made regarding attendance at the session; <br />
<br />
(d) the results of the session, stating whether full or partial settlement was reached and appending any agreement of the parties. <br />
(e) Form no. NHJB-2488-S is available on-line at www.courts.state.nh.us/forms/nhjb-2488-s.pdf <br />
<br />
5. In any action in which ADR does not result in a settlement, the action will proceed in accordance with any agreement reached in the ADR process, or in the absence of an agreement, as ordered by the court. <br />
<br />
6. ADR proceedings shall not stay, alter, suspend, or delay pretrial discovery, motions, hearings, or conferences nor the requirements and time deadlines of New Hampshire Superior Court Rules 62 and 63. However, regardless of whether the mediator was selected from the court's approved lists or not, <em>a copy of the ADR report must be filed by the plaintiff(s) or plaintiff(s)' counsel (unless otherwise agreed): (1) within 15 days of the ADR session; (2) as an exhibit to the final pre-trial statement if the case did not resolve through ADR; or (3) as an exhibit to the docket markings. If the ADR report is not timely filed, the court may schedule a show-cause hearing to determine the status of the ADR process and to impose sanctions appropriate to the circumstances, if necessary. </em><br />
<em>Inadmissibility of Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings.</em><br />
<br />
1. ADR proceedings and information relating to those proceedings shall be confidential. Information, evidence, or the admission of any party or the valuation placed on the case by any neutral shall not be disclosed or used in any subsequent proceeding. Statements made and documents prepared by a party, attorney, or other participant in aid of such proceeding shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed to any court or arbitrator or construed for any purpose as an admission against interest. All non-binding ADR proceedings such as mediation are deemed settlement conferences consistent with the Superior Court Rules and Rules of Evidence. In addition, the parties shall not introduce into evidence in any subsequent proceeding the fact that there was an ADR proceeding or any other matter concerning the conduct of the ADR proceedings except as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Mediator Standards of Conduct. <br />
<br />
2. Evidence that would otherwise be admissible at trial shall not be rendered inadmissible as a result of its use in an ADR proceeding. <br />
<br />
<em>Sanctions. </em><br />
If a party or a party's counsel fails without good cause to appear at an ADR session scheduled pursuant to this rule, or fails to comply with any order made hereunder, the court may, on its own or upon motion of a party, impose any sanction that is just under the circumstances.Pat Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08728319157845767320noreply@blogger.com0