.jpg)
Initial Appearace Fee being required in Superior Court for Filing Notice of Stay
I do the same as Mark M.
>
> I fax a notice of stay to plaintiff's counsel with a note referencing
> the Eskanos case which sets forth the penalties for failure by
> plaintiff's counsel to dismiss a pending case when a bankruptcy is filed.
>
> *************************
> 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)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> On 2/10/2010 7:19 PM, Kenneth Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why file the notice then? You given notice to Plaintiff's counsel.
> > That should be sufficient. I have filed the notices for years, but
> > will not do so if an initial appearace fee is required. It's nonsense
> >
> > Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
> > LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
> > 21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
> > Woodland Hills, California
> > 91364-2203
> > Telephone: (818)226-1205
> > Email: kennethjschwartz@...
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:33 PM, "Mark Jessee" > > wrote:
> >
> >> FYI to all of you who need to file Notice of Stay of Proceedings for
> >> clients with cases pending in the Ventura Superior Court, the Ventura> >> Superior Court Clerk's office has come to the conclusion that it is
> >> supposed to charge an initial appearance fee for every case where a
> >> Notice of Stay of Proceedings is filed and the debtor has not
> >> previously made an appearance in the case. It would be a great deel
> >> easier to demand plaintiff's counsel file a Notice of Stay of
> >> Proceedings, but as debtor's counsel we are required by LBR 2072-1 to> >> file such notice in our cases. The clerk's office takes the position
> >> that there is no CA statute or rule preventing an initial appearance
> >> fee from being charged for filing a Notice of Stay of Proceedings and> >> that as such none will be accepted for filing from debtor's counsel
> >> without payment of the $355 initial appearance filing fee. I do not
> >> view filing a notice of stay as an appearance in the case but as
> >> notifying the Superior Court as required by US Bankruptcy Court that
> >> the Superior Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the debtor
> >> because of the automatic stay. I have had this issue arise
> >> intermittently over the course of the last few years with individual
> >> deputy clerks but now the Ventura Sup. Court Clerk's office appears
> >> to have uniformly applied this position. I've been at this for 10
> >> days with them and am working my way up the chain of command, but it
> >> has been a challenge with people on vacation, sick, etc..... So far I> >> have not had clients with pending wage garnishments or levy's going
> >> on which need to be stopped (the Sheriff generally requests a
> >> conformed copy of a filed Notice of Stay), but that is just a matter
> >> of time. Any suggestions are welcome!
> >>
> >> Mark Jessee
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Why file the notice then? You given notice to Plaintiff's counsel. That should be sufficient. I have filed the notices for years, but will not do so if an initial appearace fee is required. It's nonsense
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th Floor
Woodland Hills, California
91364-2203
Telephone: (818)226-1205
Email: kennethjschwartz@yahoo.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:33 PM, "Mark Jessee" wrote:
FYI to all of you who need to file Notice of Stay of Proceedings for clients with cases pending in the Ventura Superior Court, the Ventura Superior Court Clerk's office has come to the conclusion that it is supposed to charge an initial appearance fee for every case where a Notice of Stay of Proceedings is filed and the debtor has not previously made an appearance in the case. It would be a great deel easier to demand plaintiff's counsel file a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, but as debtor's counsel we are required by LBR 2072-1 to file such notice in our cases. The clerk's office takes the position that there is no CA statute or rule preventing an initial appearance fee from being charged for filing a Notice of Stay of Proceedings and that as such none will be accepted for filing from debtor's counsel without payment of the $355 initial appearance filing fee. I do not view filing a notice of stay as an appearance in the case but as notifying the Superior
Court as required by US Bankruptcy Court that the Superior Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the debtor because of the automatic stay. I have had this issue arise intermittently over the course of the last few years with individual deputy clerks but now the Ventura Sup. Court Clerk's office appears to have uniformly applied this position. I've been at this for 10 days with them and am working my way up the chain of command, but it has been a challenge with people on vacation, sick, etc..... So far I have not had clients with pending wage garnishments or levy's going on which need to be stopped (the Sheriff generally requests a conformed copy of a filed Notice of Stay), but that is just a matter of time. Any suggestions are welcome!
Mark Jessee
Why file the notice then? You given notice to Plaintiff's counsel. That should be sufficient. I have filed the notices for years, but will not do so if an initial appearace fee is required. It's nonsense Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ21031 Ventura Boulevard, 12th FloorWoodland Hills, California
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
FYI to all of you who need to file Notice of Stay of Proceedings for clients with cases pending in the Ventura Superior Court, the Ventura Superior Court Clerk's office has come to the conclusion that it is supposed to charge an initial appearance fee for every case where a Notice of Stay of Proceedings is filed and the debtor has not previously made an appearance in the case. It would be a great deel easier to demand plaintiff's counsel file a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, but as debtor's counsel we are required by LBR 2072-1 to file such notice in our cases. The clerk's office takes the position that there is no CA statute or rule preventing an initial appearance fee from being charged for filing a Notice of Stay of Proceedings and that as such none will be accepted for filing from debtor's counsel without payment of the $355 initial appearance filing fee. I do not view filing a notice of stay as an appearance in the case but as notifying the Superior Court as required by US Bankruptcy Court that the Superior Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the debtor because of the automatic stay. I have had this issue arise intermittently over the course of the last few years with individual deputy clerks but now the Ventura Sup. Court Clerk's office appears to have uniformly applied this position. I've been at this for 10 days with them and am working my way up the chain of command, but it has been a challenge with people on vacation, sick, etc..... So far I have not had clients with pending wage garnishments or levy's going on which need to be stopped (the Sheriff generally requests a conformed copy of a filed Notice of Stay), but that is just a matter of time. Any suggestions are welcome!
Mark Jessee
The post was migrated from Yahoo.