Unsworn Complaint

[Gone South]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

What would be a reason why a plaintiff's lawyer would file an initial complaint without the sworn statement line under penalty of perjury being anywhere in the document?

 

[Silverplum]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

What would be a reason why a plaintiff's lawyer would file an initial complaint without the sworn statement line under penalty of perjury being anywhere in the document?

We can't answer "why" questions, because we can't possibly know the reason/s people act as they do.

Maybe s/he forgot. Maybe that declaration is not required for that filing.

 

[Gone South]

We can't answer "why" questions, because we can't possibly know the reason/s people act as they do.

Maybe s/he forgot. Maybe that declaration is not required for that filing.

Thank you for the response Silverplum

On research I just found out why; because it would hold the plaintiff to his words and claims etc...... However would you know if there is a document out there that could Motion a plaintiff to verify?

 

[FlyingRon]

What makes you think such is required? While many of the forms the California courts use have such a statement (this is correct under penalty of perjury), the
California Code of Civil Procedure doesn't specifically require that declaration.

The law requires certain things (court name, plaintiff, defendant, dollar amount or other redress requested) but even a signature let alone a sworn statement isn't strictly required.

 

[Gone South]

What makes you think such is required? While many of the forms the California courts use have such a statement (this is correct under penalty of perjury), the
California Code of Civil Procedure doesn't specifically require that declaration.

The law requires certain things (court name, plaintiff, defendant, dollar amount or other redress requested) but even a signature let alone a sworn statement isn't strictly required.

What makes you think such is required?

Well thinking that if you are bringing a suit against someone Rule11 128.7 would require truthfulness; just seems like a way to avoid sanctions and makes me think it is a way to harass without being liable if it is not verified..

I am no lawyer that is why I ask as I am in a position where the plaintiff has filed a friv complaint easily disprovable and did not verify statement by swearing under oath with the intent to drag me financially through court

 

[adjusterjack]

The complaint is just notice to you that you are being sued. It has nothing to do with the validity or truthfulness of the plaintiff's case.

You can waste your time addressing the lack of verification but you'll get nowhere other than pissing off the judge for wasting his time.

If you have a valid defense to the plaintiff's allegations, respond accordingly, defend yourself at trial and stop looking for technicalities.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

What would be a reason why a plaintiff's lawyer would file an initial complaint without the sworn statement line under penalty of perjury being anywhere in the document?

Aren't you well past the "initial complaint" stage already, Gone South?

https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/who-liable-629910.html

https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/time-frames-630013.html

https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/jury-field-trips-630185.html

 

[Gone South]

The complaint is just notice to you that you are being sued. It has nothing to do with the validity or truthfulness of the plaintiff's case.

You can waste your time addressing the lack of verification but you'll get nowhere other than pissing off the judge for wasting his time.

If you have a valid defense to the plaintiff's allegations, respond accordingly, defend yourself at trial and stop looking for technicalities.

Thank you adjusterjack ; turns out the unverified complaint works better for me; due to the general denial option which forces them to prove nonsense

 

[Gone South]

Aren't you well past the "initial complaint" stage already, Gone South?

https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/who-liable-629910.html

https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/time-frames-630013.html

https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/jury-field-trips-630185.html

Not yet Quincy; turns out the service was all sewer service and can be easily proved, (purpose of an easy default), also another state issue just popped up that puts plaintiff in some deep doo doo and was brought to the courts attention, I will let you know what that was when its over I cannot say right now; so seeing as I am wrapped up in friv case there is no sense just letting them walk all over me I excised my rights to Quash etc.

 

[quincy]

Not yet Quincy; turns out the service was all sewer service and can be easily proved, (purpose of an easy default), also another state issue just popped up that puts plaintiff in some deep doo doo and was brought to the courts attention, I will let you know what that was when its over I cannot say right now; so seeing as I am wrapped up in friv case there is no sense just letting them walk all over me I excised my rights to Quash etc.

I hope you do not have to spend too much more of your time or money defending against Business A's complaint. You knew in advance what the company's purpose has been in filing suit. I suggest you don't let any unimportant issues distract you.

 

[Gone South]

I hope you do not have to spend too much more of your time or money defending against Business A's complaint. You knew in advance what the company's purpose has been in filing suit. I suggest you don't let any unimportant issues distract you.

@Quincy

This is why I have been filing myself to get them use to the idea that their plan of flooding an attorney to rack up my bill went out the window; yes I have had my nose in a civil litigation books just about 24/7, at the end of the day they do not have a shred of evidence plus they have a new case damaging added issue on their back.

Yes my paper work has not been perfect had to file an Errata already but hey so have they; I have already experienced a few of their dirty litigation tricks but just ignored them.

Walking into court without doubt is nerve racking but when you know they have nothing and they guessed wrong I would fold I think it is just a matter of time before they back off.

 

[quincy]

@Quincy

... I think it is just a matter of time before they back off.

I hope for your sake that is the case. It is hard to run a business when that business is involved in litigation.

I also want to echo adjusterjack's earlier warning to you: You do not want to risk "pissing off the judge." It is better to let the other company do that.

As always, I wish you good luck.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California. What would be a reason why a plaintiff's lawyer would file an initial complaint without the sworn statement line under penalty of perjury being anywhere in the document?

What would be the reason?

Let me ask you what makes you believe that California requires such a sworn statement? If your thinking is that in your state all civil complaints must be verified under oath - either by the attorney for the plaintiff or if appearing without an attorney then by the plaintiff - then you are mistaken.

What California does require is that all pleadings, petition, motions, notice of motions, etc., etc., shall be signed by at least one attorney of record, or if the party is appearing pro se then by the party. (See Cal. CCP Sections 128.7 and 446) (Although an affidavit may be used to verify a pleading (Cal CPP 2009) unless it is a special proceeding in which the pleader intends to rely on some particular rule of law, statute, etc. that requires such verification (2015.5) it is NOT mandatory.)

However, this discussion is for naught. It is entirely meaningless as to whether or not the complaint is actually verified. It is without significance! Why?

I'll tell you why. It is because of Cal CPP Rule 128.7 - (California's adaptation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) which provides that any time an attorney or litigant signs, files, submits or later advocates a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, THEREBY CERTIFIES to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that all of the following conditions are met:

1. It is not being submitted for any improper purpose such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

2. The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or are subject to nonfrivolous argument for modification of existing law.

3. The allegations and other factual contentions contained have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

Although the Rule does not speak in terms of penalty of perjury violations can result in severe sanctions imposed upon the offender.

 

[latigo]

Thank you adjusterjack ; turns out the unverified complaint works better for me; due to the general denial option which forces them to prove nonsense

You are thanking adjusterjack for making the absurd statement that the complaint has nothing to do with the validity or truthfulness of the plaintiff's case?!

Obviously adjusterjack has never practiced law before the federal or any state courts and would do well to read some law before making such blatantly erroneous and foolish remarks. Here California's adaptation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure!

 

[FlyingRon]

Again, while the statements need to be truthful, there's no statutory requirement nor rule of the court that requires that the statements be sworn. The rules list the elements of the complaint. I enumerated them. There's no requirement that it be sworn.