.jpg)
Further Update Service of Judge's (Chamber's) Copies
charset="UTF-8"
I wasnt questioning the accuracy of your statement regarding the Rules, I was questioning if those ARE the rules were supposed to be following whether it makes any sense to follow them. There are rules, and then there are rules. And I believe one of the local rules somewhere states that a Judge can ignore any or all of the local rules at their discretion.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="windows-1256"
Mark:
You correctly state the rule, but I don't understand the big deal. The
proof of service is no different than signing a proof of service for
documents sent to creditors. Am I am missing something?
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
Mark T.Jessee
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:23 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Further Update Service of Judge's (Chamber's) Copies
I have no idea what any particular judge will do if served a copy of an
electronically filed document without a proof of service. Some may care,
some may not. I am just stating what the new local rules require. I do not
make a habit of misquoting the local rules. I assume judges copies are not
being filed as required and that the new local rule is an attempt to ensure
all attorney's comply with the judge's copy requirement. New LBR 5005-2(d)
requires a judge's copy be provided of every filed document in the format
required and by the deadline set forth (i.e. within 24 hours of it being
electronically filed - the issue being how it is allowed to be served
depending on if there is a hearing within 14 days) in the new Court Manual
Appendix F . The Court Manual Appendix F 1.2 requires a proof of service be
attached in the form of new LBR form 9013-3.1 which reflects the language
that a copy will be served on the judge's chambers as prescribed by new LBR
5005-2(d). Perhaps it was not intended that a proof of service be required
where no party but the judge would be served, but I could not find any
exception anywhere exempting any document filings from the proof of service
attachment requirement. We can inquire of Judge Donovan at the New local
Rules MCLE CDCBAA event on January 24. A copy of new mandatory LBR form
9013-3.1 effective 1/5/09 is attached as a pdf.
The point I was trying to make is that attaching a proof of service is
cumbersome for documents that do not otherwise require a proof of service.
Nevertheless we are required to abide by the local rules if we practice in
this District. If we are required to execute a proof of service under
penalty of perjury saying that we intend to serve the electronically filed
document on the judges chambers, we are obligated to do so.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I recall a program I went to a few months ago and one of the judges
laughed and said do not send a copy of the chapter 7 petition and
schedules to chambers on new cases - they just throw them out. That
has not changed I assume?
wrote:
>
> Judges want copies so they don't have to print out a copy of every
document
> - just in case they need to review it. Some judges, like some
lawyers,
> prefer to read hard copy, rather than on the screen. I believe
most judges
> are still keeping a hard copy of their cases. Also, they are
cutting down
> on THEIR paper and printer costs by requiring us to send copies.
This seems
> like a pain, but it is much better than having to print, copy and
file
> several copies as we used to.
>
> David A. Tilem
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
> 206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
> Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
>
> * Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
> Specialization.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of
Certification
>
>
>
Behalf Of
> Amy Clark
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 2:28 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Further Update Service of Judge's (Chamber's)
Copies
>
>
>
> Why in the world would judges want a PAPER copy of every Chapter 7
petition?
>
> This is an immense waste of paper in a time when theoretically more
> and more people are caring about going "green". Apparently that does
> not mean the Bankruptcy Court.
>
> -- Amy Clark Kleinpeter
>
> 1489 E. Colorado Blvd. #207
> Pasadena, CA 91106
> (626) 507-8090
>
> "Bankruptcy, Michael, is nature's do-over. It's a fresh start, a
clean
> slate."
>
> "Like the witness protection program!"
>
> "Exactly."
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Mark T. Jessee com> wrote:
> > One headache is resolved another created. The extensive new local
> > rules effective January 5, 2009 confirm that Judge's copies
(formerly
> > Chamber's Copies) can be dropped in the Judge's bins. There is an
> > entirely new Court Manual that explains in detail how to provide
the
> > Judge's Copy of documents (Appendix F). The new headache is EVERY
> > SINGLE DOCUMENT FILED MUST CONTAIN A PROOF OF SERVICE stating
that the
> > Judge will be served as required on the new MANDATORY local form
> > provided for that purpose. It appears that now we need attach
> > prospective proof's of service on every document filed from this
point
> > forward including Petitions. (More of our time wasted) How silly,
to
> > require a proof of service that states we intent to serve the
> > document. At least the new local rules do not require us to file a
> > proof of service of the Judge's copy after it was actually served
> > too!
> >
> > Mark Jessee
> >
> >
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have no idea what any particular judge will do if served a copy of an electronically filed document without a proof of service. Some may care, some may not. I am just stating what the new local rules require. I do not make a habit of misquoting the local rules. I assume judges copies are not being filed as required and that the new local rule is an attempt to ensure all attorney's comply with the judge's copy requirement. New LBR 5005-2(d) requires a judge's copy be provided of every filed document in the format required and by the deadline set forth (i.e. within 24 hours of it being electronically filed - the issue being how it is allowed to be served depending on if there is a hearing within 14 days) in the new Court Manual Appendix F . The Court Manual Appendix F 1.2 requires a proof of service be attached in the form of new LBR form 9013-3.1 which reflects the language that a copy will be served on the judge's chambers as prescribed by new LBR 5005-2(d). Perhaps it was not intended that a proof of service be required where no party but the judge would be served, but I could not find any exception anywhere exempting any document filings from the proof of service attachment requirement. We can inquire of Judge Donovan at the New local Rules MCLE CDCBAA event on January 24. A copy of new mandatory LBR form 9013-3.1 effective 1/5/09 is attached as a pdf.
The point I was trying to make is that attaching a proof of service is cumbersome for documents that do not otherwise require a proof of service. Nevertheless we are required to abide by the local rules if we practice in this District. If we are required to execute a proof of service under penalty of perjury saying that we intend to serve the electronically filed document on the judges chambers, we are obligated to do so.
From a Civil Procedure standpoint I also find it odd to be potentially held accountable for a declaration under penalty of perjury about what we intend to do or have done for us by someone else, rather than for what we can individually attest to already having been accomplished. Logically it would make far more sense to require a proof of service after the documents are served. That said I'm not hopping for that change as filing proofs of service after the fact would be even more burdensome.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF
THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY
US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Sun Jan 4 21:25 , 'Mark JM' sent:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="windows-1251"
Judges want copies so they don't have to print out a copy of every document
- just in case they need to review it. Some judges, like some lawyers,
prefer to read hard copy, rather than on the screen. I believe most judges
are still keeping a hard copy of their cases. Also, they are cutting down
on THEIR paper and printer costs by requiring us to send copies. This seems
like a pain, but it is much better than having to print, copy and file
several copies as we used to.
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have not had an opportunity yet to read the new local rules section on
this point, but I doubt that's what it says. Moreover, the alleged
requirement to add judges to the proofs of service is also a more or less
meaningless requirement. What is the judge going to do if you've served
him/her, but failed to list them on the proof of service? Come on....
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
Toll Free: 1-866-576-6275
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
_____
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of
Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the
use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication
Amy Clark
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 2:28 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Further Update Service of Judge's (Chamber's) Copies
Why in the world would judges want a PAPER copy of every Chapter 7 petition?
This is an immense waste of paper in a time when theoretically more
and more people are caring about going "green". Apparently that does
not mean the Bankruptcy Court.
1489 E. Colorado Blvd. #207
Pasadena, CA 91106
(626) 507-8090
"Bankruptcy, Michael, is nature's do-over. It's a fresh start, a clean
slate."
"Like the witness protection program!"
"Exactly."
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Mark T. Jessee
wrote:
> One headache is resolved another created. The extensive new local
> rules effective January 5, 2009 confirm that Judge's copies (formerly
> Chamber's Copies) can be dropped in the Judge's bins. There is an
> entirely new Court Manual that explains in detail how to provide the
> Judge's Copy of documents (Appendix F). The new headache is EVERY
> SINGLE DOCUMENT FILED MUST CONTAIN A PROOF OF SERVICE stating that the
> Judge will be served as required on the new MANDATORY local form
> provided for that purpose. It appears that now we need attach
> prospective proof's of service on every document filed from this point
> forward including Petitions. (More of our time wasted) How silly, to
> require a proof of service that states we intent to serve the
> document. At least the new local rules do not require us to file a
> proof of service of the Judge's copy after it was actually served
> too!
>
> Mark Jessee
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Why in the world would judges want a PAPER copy of every Chapter 7 petition?
This is an immense waste of paper in a time when theoretically more
and more people are caring about going "green". Apparently that does
not mean the Bankruptcy Court.
1489 E. Colorado Blvd. #207
Pasadena, CA 91106
(626) 507-8090
"Bankruptcy, Michael, is nature's do-over. It's a fresh start, a clean slate."
"Like the witness protection program!"
"Exactly."
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Mark T. Jessee wrote:
> One headache is resolved another created. The extensive new local
> rules effective January 5, 2009 confirm that Judge's copies (formerly
> Chamber's Copies) can be dropped in the Judge's bins. There is an
> entirely new Court Manual that explains in detail how to provide the
> Judge's Copy of documents (Appendix F). The new headache is EVERY
> SINGLE DOCUMENT FILED MUST CONTAIN A PROOF OF SERVICE stating that the
> Judge will be served as required on the new MANDATORY local form
> provided for that purpose. It appears that now we need attach
> prospective proof's of service on every document filed from this point
> forward including Petitions. (More of our time wasted) How silly, to
> require a proof of service that states we intent to serve the
> document. At least the new local rules do not require us to file a
> proof of service of the Judge's copy after it was actually served
> too!
>
> Mark Jessee
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
One headache is resolved another created. The extensive new local
rules effective January 5, 2009 confirm that Judge's copies (formerly
Chamber's Copies) can be dropped in the Judge's bins. There is an
entirely new Court Manual that explains in detail how to provide the
Judge's Copy of documents (Appendix F). The new headache is EVERY
SINGLE DOCUMENT FILED MUST CONTAIN A PROOF OF SERVICE stating that the
Judge will be served as required on the new MANDATORY local form
provided for that purpose. It appears that now we need attach
prospective proof's of service on every document filed from this point
forward including Petitions. (More of our time wasted) How silly, to
require a proof of service that states we intent to serve the
document. At least the new local rules do not require us to file a
proof of service of the Judge's copy after it was actually served
too!
Mark Jessee
The post was migrated from Yahoo.