PLG NEWSNews + updates + recent press
|
Archives
October 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
March 2024
February 2024
August 2023
May 2023
April 2023
January 2023
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
On December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, that goes into effect May 2021. The amended rule adopts the federal summary judgment standard. Prior to the amendment, Florida courts and the federal courts had not been aligned in their controlling summary judgment standard. Prior to this amendment, there were two relevant differences between the Florida and the Federal summary judgment standards:
House Bill 621 has successfully passed the Ohio House of Representatives and is now before the Senate. Known as the Business Fairness Act, the Bill seeks to amend those sections of the Ohio Revised Code governing violations of prohibitions ordered by the Department of Health, Board of Health and various health districts (R.C. 3701.352, 3707.48 and 3709.211) by permitting businesses to continue operation in certain cases when ordered to cease. Specifically, the Bill proposes that a “business that has been required to cease or limit operations by order or regulation… due to epidemic, threatened epidemic, or the unusual prevalence of a dangerous communicable disease, may continue or resume operations if it complies with any safety precautions that the order or regulation requires of businesses that are permitted to continue operations.” Proposed R.C. 3707.481. The Michigan Supreme Court has amended its June 2020 Administrative Order No. 2020-17 that provided direction to state courts for resuming eviction actions. Prior to the pandemic, courts traditionally processed these types of cases in a “cattle-call” fashion, with numerous cases being called simultaneously and resulting in large number of individuals in crowded and enclosed spaces. The Court noted in June that this method of processing eviction cases was inconsistent with safety protocol in place due to COVID-19 and would present a public health threat if removal of moratoriums on eviction filings resulted in a sudden increase in eviction filings once the court resumed full-capacity operations. Most notably, Order 2020-17 did three things:
The amendment extends compliance with Order 2020-17 through the end of 2020 in tandem with the CDC’s eviction moratorium and seeks to reduce “the possibility of further infection while ensuring that landlord/tenant cases are able to be filed and adjudicated efficiently.” Amendment to Administrative Order No. 2020-17. The above information provided by PLG attorney, Ellen Fornash, licensed in OH, KY and MI. With nearly all of Kentucky’s 120 counties in the “red zone” related to average daily coronavirus cases per population, the Kentucky Supreme Court has replaced and extended two prior mandates regarding in-person court appearances. Administrative Order 2020-71 replaces Administrative Order 2020-63, while Administrative Order 2020-72 replaces Administrative Order 2020-64. These Orders become effective November 30, 2020 and apply to all Kentucky counties. Most notably, entrance to judicial facilities will be reduced, hearings will be conducted remotely whenever possible, jury trials will be suspended until February 1, 2021 and judicial foreclosure sales will be conducted either remotely or outside and in accordance with CDC guidelines. The above information provided by PLG attorney, Ellen Fornash, licensed in OH, KY and MI. In a unique move, that mimics the rules of Federal Procedure, The Texas Supreme Court has made some of the biggest discovery changes to occur in Texas State trial courts in the past two decades. Attorneys and staff will need to take to learn and fully understand all the changes in order to properly implement new procedures as they apply to all cases filed on or after January 1, 2021. In accordance with the 86th legislature and Senate Bill 2342 the Texas Supreme Court has approved amendments to Rules 169 and 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 169 governing expedited actions has been amended to apply to suits in which all claimants, other than counter-claimants, affirmatively plead that they seek only monetary relief aggregating $250,000 or less excluding interest, statutory, or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney’s fees and costs. This amendment has effectively raised the statutory limitation for expedited actions from $100,000 to $250,000. This will essentially promote the prompt, efficient, and cost-effective resolution of civil actions filed in courts of law in which the amount in controversy does not exceed $250,000. Further, certain actions will remain exempt from Rule 169’s application by statute. See e.g. Tex. Estates Code Sec. 53.107.
The most important changes to be aware of however have been made to the rules of discovery. Per the new amendments, discovery and production will no longer be optional. Effective as of January 1, 2021 Rule 194 has been amended as follows: 194.1 Duty to Disclose; Production
In a decision that will be deemed as a big win for creditors, litigators, or really anyone who has ever dealt with evasive defendants, the State of Texas has decided to enter into a new age and territory when it comes to dealing with service of process. The Supreme Court of Texas in accordance with the 86th Legislature and Senate Bill 891 has approved amendments to Rule 106 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 106 has been revised in response to section 17.033 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which calls for rules to provide for substituted service of citation by social media. |
PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog. Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. |
Padgett Law Group and Padgett Law Group EP are D/B/As of Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. Timothy D. Padgett, P.A.'s practice areas include creditors' rights, estate planning and probate, real estate transactions and litigation. Not all practices or services are available in all states in which Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. practices.
PRIVACY STATEMENT | WEBSITE DESIGN BY SQFT.MANAGEMENT
|