Is it 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Civil Procedure or 2020 Rules on Civil Procedure?
This may sound quite dumb but I just need 100% certainty.
Thank you so much!
UPDATE: I finally had the courage to reach out to Atty. Manny Riguera for my concern, and here's what he said:
https://preview.redd.it/mvadr3x6bd171.png?width=750&format=png&auto=webp&s=e80bb47cd945b225d8de404998b443efd658cf0b
Hope this helps!
If hindi pa kayo member, please dm me your email-add, I'll give you an invite. Stay safe future Attys. :)
Anyone know where I can get a good CIV PRO MBE outline? I am about to destroy the monitor. I keep getting Civ Pro MBEs wrong. Other than SMJ, PJ, improper venue, summary judgement, I basically got all other civ pro mbes wrong, especially Erie, appeal and jury. Apparently, my outline got problem.
So, I have done questions for every subject (40 ish). But civil procedure is really low. Whereas every other subject is like 55 to 65. Like so far (first 10), like 15%. Can anyone recommend anything? I did really bad on the last exam (only beating 10%).... so with me only failing by 1 point...if I can get this to 50%... I sound in a great position to pass. Right?!
I love some advice on how to improve
Using adapti bar now.
I’ve heard 60% on every subject can lead sons to pass. So I’d be so close if it wasn’t this one subject...
Until recently, Paul had always lived in State A. Last year, he decided he would move to State B for at least one year and, after a year, decide whether to remain in State B or return to State A. Six months ago, Paul moved to State B, rented an apartment, and took a job as a temporary employee. Paul has enjoyed living in State B so much that he recently left his temporary job and accepted a position as a permanent employee at a law firm in State B. Shortly after he moved to State B, Paul bought a vacation home in State A, which he visits about once a month for two or three days. To pay for the vacation home, Paul obtained a loan from Credit Union in State A. Credit Union is incorporated in and chartered by State A. Its only office, located in State A, is both its corporate headquarters and the place where it transacts business with its customers.
Ninety-five percent of Credit Union’s customers are State A residents who do business with Credit Union in person at its State A office. Paul’s loan agreement with Credit Union provides that he will repay the loan in monthly installments over a 30-year period. Credit Union has a mortgage on Paul’s vacation home to secure the debt. The loan paperwork lists Paul’s State B address as his mailing and home address. The loan agreement also contains a privacy provision whereby Credit Union agrees not to disclose Paul’s personal information to any third party without Paul’s written permission. Credit Union sends a loan statement and payment coupon to Paul’s State B address each month, and Paul returns the payment coupon with a check for the payment amount.
After the loan closed, a Credit Union employee mailed copies of all the loan paperwork to Paul. Unfortunately, the employee misread Paul’s address in State B and sent the paperwork to an incorrect address. Several months later, Paul discovered that someone had gotten his loan paperwork and had used the information (including Paul’s Social Security number and credit card numbers) to steal his identity. The identity thief had quickly accumulated $150,000 in unpaid bills in Paul’s name. Paul’s credit rating was ruined, and no one would extend him new credit. Paul has sued Credit Union in the United States District Court for the District of State B for breach of the privacy provisions of the loan contract. The parties have stipulated that Paul’s actual loss was $80,000. Paul’s suit seeks $240,000 in damages, plus attorney’s fees, pursuant to a State A statute that
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Suit 1: Son prevailed in negligence against Driver. The jury's interrogatories as to the Mom is not binding where she didn't have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue if the court does not find Mom and Son in privity.
1. Son v Driver: Mom's claim is not barred under claim preclusion if she is not deemed the Son's successor R: Claim preclusion is barred when it involves : (1) the same parties and their successors in privity; (2) the claim in the first sui is the same as the second suit AND (3) a valid judgment was rendered on the merits.
In the Son v. Driver dispute, the Son is unlikely to be deemed a party in privity with the Mom because the action concerned the Son and Driver's respective fault in negligence. This was the not same claim asserted in Mom's suit against the Driver in suit 2. Like the first suit, the facts and claims arose from the same cause, transaction, or occurrence but the claim is different because the first claim dealt with negligence while the second claim concerns property
damages. C: Therefore, Mom can her bring her claims regarding the car's destruction where she is not deemed as the Son's successor -- Mom was not a party to the first suit. Different parties equate to different claims for purposes of claim preclusion.
2. The issue is whether Mom is precluded based on a negligence finding against her in failing to maintain her brakes in her subsequent suit against Driver. -- No, Mom may offensively use collateral estoppel in her suit against the driver.
R: Issue preclusion does not allow relitigating in two suits where: (1) the issue in the first suit is the same as the issue in the second suit. (2) the issue in suit 1 was essential to the outcome in suit 1. (3) the issue in suit 1 was actually ruled upon on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. and (3) the party to be bound was a party in the first suit.
A: In the second suit, Mom is trying to offensively use the finding against the Driver in suit 1 against him in suit 2. This will likely be allowed because Mom was not a party to the first suit and mutuality does not require Mom to be involved in the first suit in any way. Driver did have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in suit 1 thus, Driver's negligence is conclusively established that there is no need to re-litigate the issue. Mom did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of the car's brake maintenance because she was not a pa
... keep reading on reddit ➡Themis practice sessions seem impossibly difficult. Even after drilling difficult areas I can't seem to crack the 60% mark.
Any recommendations for resources to help/quiz with issue spotting?
I have access to Quimbee, Glannon/Emmanuel/etc. through school, and CALI. Any free resources would be helpful, too.
hey guys, just looking for clarification on this rule. Rule 15.02 of the rules of civil procedure in Ontario.
my questions are;
a) is this just a normal request that can be done via e-mail? Or should I make a more formal request?
b) what would the title of this letter be? a request for notice of lawyer?
Thank you for your time and help.
The rule is copy pasted below;
Notice of Authority to Commence Proceeding
Request for Notice by Lawyer
15.02 (1) A person who is served with an originating process may deliver a request that the lawyer who is named in the originating process as the lawyer for the plaintiff or applicant deliver a notice declaring whether he or she commenced or authorized the commencement of the proceeding or whether his or her client authorized the commencement of the proceeding. O. Reg. 427/01, s. 9; O. Reg. 575/07, s. 1.
