What is the meaning of a deadline for a demurrer argument and brief?

[republicrat]

Mark what you are basically saying, correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't think my question requires any knowledge of any case, since it is a generic question, is that it is ok to file additional paperwork, besides the sheet requesting a hearing, in support of a response, in which case a demurrer, after the due date, so long as it does not raise a new grounds for lack of causation, and is merely more support of prior-submitted grounds. If so, then one could indeed file a placeholder argument on the Judge's due date, followed by a different supporting brief. This, to me, makes no sense, since it belittles the meaning of the due date to begin with. That was why I posted the question. It seems to make no sense to me that one can have a two-staged submission of a response with a specific due date, with only the first stage being due. It is sort of like filing a notice of appeal without a brief. I've seen it so I guess you are right, but it isn't common sense to me. I don't know why you seem to be ok with reversing yourself, since your earlier response suggested that the due date is the due date.

Obviously, if there is an oral hearing, as is the case here, one might end up raising new arguments then. Can one object on the grounds that an argument is new and was not in their written brief?

 

[Silverplum]

Silverplum: "But if you can't find the rules or know which court you're using, I sincerely tell you to HIRE AN ATTORNEY."
The court is Fairfax circuit court of Virginia. The one thing I expected to get here was someone able to point me to the rules. If a court's rules are not available to all it would imply the 6th amendment to the us constitution is bunk. (It calls for the right to a public trial, but if there are secrets kept from the public, like the rules being used, then it isn't a public trial.)

Nonsense. The rules are online. Or you could bestir yourself to do your own research and enter the courthouse and ask.

 

[Paul84]

Mark what you are basically saying, correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't think my question requires any knowledge of any case, since it is a generic question, is that it is ok to file additional paperwork, besides the sheet requesting a hearing, in support of a response, in which case a demurrer, after the due date, so long as it does not raise a new grounds for lack of causation, and is merely more support of prior-submitted grounds. If so, then one could indeed file a placeholder argument on the Judge's due date, followed by a different supporting brief. This, to me, makes no sense, since it belittles the meaning of the due date to begin with. That was why I posted the question. It seems to make no sense to me that one can have a two-staged submission of a response with a specific due date, with only the first stage being due. It is sort of like filing a notice of appeal without a brief. I've seen it so I guess you are right, but it isn't common sense to me. I don't know why you seem to be ok with reversing yourself, since your earlier response suggested that the due date is the due date.

Obviously, if there is an oral hearing, as is the case here, one might end up raising new arguments then. Can one object on the grounds that an argument is new and was not in their written brief?

Republicrat,
What Nellibelle describes is what I did (just substitute MTD for demurrer). I filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to their first motion to dismiss ("MTD"); they then withdrew that MTD once I filed my Amended Complaint. Then I filed a 2nd Memo of Law in Opposition to their Memo of Law in support of the 2nd MTD . Then they filed a reply brief (which was shorter--it's only allowed to be 10 pages max in federal court versus 25 pages for the original Memo of Law and Opposing Memo).

So what Mark says is probably what happened: you may be confusing their reply brief with a 3rd demurrer. Unfortunately, at this stage, they get the last word. Technically, in a reply brief (what you seem to call a 3rd demurrer), they can only address points that you raised in your opposition brief, and not introduce new material. So if there is an oral hearing, you might mention that they introduced new material in their reply that was not in their original memo of law supporting the 1st (or 2nd) demurrer.

By the way, my case is still ongoing after 2 1/2 years.

 

[Mark Maroon]

Mark what you are basically saying, correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't think my question requires any knowledge of any case, since it is a generic question, is that it is ok to file additional paperwork, besides the sheet requesting a hearing, in support of a response, in which case a demurrer, after the due date, so long as it does not raise a new grounds for lack of causation, and is merely more support of prior-submitted grounds. If so, then one could indeed file a placeholder argument on the Judge's due date, followed by a different supporting brief.

That sounds close to what I am saying, but it's not quite what I am saying. Again, I don't know the rules of your court, so I am just speaking in generalities here that may not apply to your specific court, but it seems to me that the demurer #2 that they filed is not a "placeholder". It seems to me that is their demurer. They filed it on time. The court didn't give them a time limit on when they could file a brief in support of their demurer, nor did the court state the date by which they must schedule that their demurer be heard, nor did the court state the date by which their demurer must be heard (note the last two "nor did's" are two different things). A demurer and a brief in support of a demurer are two separate filings. The court ordered one thing to be filed within a specific time after you file an amended complaint, the court made no statement about the other thing.

The demurer should list the specific rules of court that your complaint failed to meet. For instance: Your complaint failed to meet rule X, and so it should be dismissed. Your complaint failed to meet rule Y, and so it should be dismissed. Your complaint failed to meet rule Z, and so it should be dismissed.

Their brief can be filed any time, and it can explain all of the reasons and case law for why they think that your complaint failed to meet rules X, Y, and Z (even if some of those reasons where not articulated in their demurer). However, what they CANNOT do in their brief is suddenly claim that your complaint should be dismissed because it also failed to meet rules A, B, or C - because those were NOT raised in their demurer.

 

[republicrat]

Republicrat,
So what Mark says is probably what happened: you may be confusing their reply brief with a 3rd demurrer. Unfortunately, at this stage, they get the last word. Technically, in a reply brief (what you seem to call a 3rd demurrer), they can only address points that you raised in your opposition brief, and not introduce new material. So if there is an oral hearing, you might mention that they introduced new material in their reply that was not in their original memo of law supporting the 1st (or 2nd) demurrer.

Hi Paul. No, you have the sequence a little incorrect. Let me repeat it in a form that is clearer:

Me: complaint.
them: demurrer #1.
Me. op. to dem #1.
Judge: hearing + order to amend complaint.
me: amended complaint
them: demurrer #2 no cover sheet.
them: demurrer #2a (I called #3) with cover sheet requesting hearing date.
me: op. to dem #2a and 2.

The big question being raised and answered by mark is what differences are allowed between #2 and #2a, and can I ignore #2a. Mark has said it is a-ok for them to have both #2 and #2a, so long as #2a does not raise new rationales for the demurrer. To me this seems unfair. But I will accept what he says is true since I have nothing else to go on. If that is what the rules allow, that is what the rules allow.

Speaking of which, since the question was raised by Silverplum, I've discovered that there are no true local rules for this court, just the va supreme court's rules, which I always had but did not realize they are also used for this court. So he is partly correct but not 100%. (The court does have a strange and large local court procedures handbook, but it is $206 and no, there is no pdf version allowed, let alone a free one.)

 

[Silverplum]

Hi Paul. No, you have the sequence a little incorrect. Let me repeat it in a form that is clearer:

Me: complaint.
them: demurrer #1.
Me. op. to dem #1.
Judge: hearing + order to amend complaint.
me: amended complaint
them: demurrer #2 no cover sheet.
them: demurrer #2a (I called #3) with cover sheet requesting hearing date.
me: op. to dem #2a and 2.

The big question being raised and answered by mark is what differences are allowed between #2 and #2a, and can I ignore #2a. Mark has said it is a-ok for them to have both #2 and #2a, so long as #2a does not raise new rationales for the demurrer. To me this seems unfair. But I will accept what he says is true since I have nothing else to go on. If that is what the rules allow, that is what the rules allow.

Speaking of which, since the question was raised by Silverplum, I've discovered that there are no true local rules for this court, just the va supreme court's rules, which I always had but did not realize they are also used for this court. So he is partly correct but not 100%. (The court does have a strange and large local court procedures handbook, but it is $206 and no, there is no pdf version allowed, let alone a free one.)

To correct you yet again: I was completely 100% correct. Just because you didn't do your research and didn't even know about what you were complaining and even invented irrational conspiracy theories, does not in any way affect the complete correctness of my answers in your thread.

 

[republicrat]

To correct you yet again: I was completely 100% correct. Just because you didn't do your research and didn't even know about what you were complaining and even invented irrational conspiracy theories, does not in any way affect the complete correctness of my answers in your thread.

Silverplum, given that the court rules and procedures are 100% free, and that you're correct and I'm 100% wrong, and that I'm allegedly a conspiracy theorist since I consider the constitution in my legal understanding, even though I had thought I thought that almost all conspiracies are bunk, might I ask you what is this document below, and why is it used by attorneys filing briefs at the circuit courts in virginia?

https://fairfaxbar.site-ym.com/store/ViewProduct.aspx?id=3381072

Online Store: Publications

Main Storefront
Cart (0)


8th Edition Fairfax Circuit Court Practice Manual 2014© - Plus Shipping

Item Options
Price: $195.00
Quantity: *

Description

8th Edition Fairfax Circuit Court Practice Manual 2014© with USB Drive - Plus Shipping

$195.00 + tax ($11.70) + $25.00 S&H

To view the Circuit Court Manual Table of Contents, please click here.

Many thanks for helping my confusion, Silverplum.

 

[republicrat]

A demurer and a brief in support of a demurer are two separate filings. The court ordered one thing to be filed within a specific time after you file an amended complaint, the court made no statement about the other thing.

Mark, I agree. It so happens both documents were due at the same time. A demurrer is a "2-week" motion. See 6.A. (or is that 6(A), does anyone know?) of the court's "local rules" ( http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/courts/circuit/pdf/ccr-e-05.pdf ). 6.B. says that if a demurrer is filed, it must also have a cover sheet and a 5-page points of memorandum. So that was due April 23. 6.D. also states that all such motions must be accompanied by a <=5-page "memorandum and points of authorities." So this again all was actually due April 23. They submitted it late on May 3 in violation of 6.D. So I think they are submitting it late. Defendant should have scheduled a hearing to have their motion heard, but they filed a new demurrer late.

 

[Paul84]

Hi Paul. No, you have the sequence a little incorrect. Let me repeat it in a form that is clearer:

Me: complaint.
them: demurrer #1.
Me. op. to dem #1.
Judge: hearing + order to amend complaint.
me: amended complaint
them: demurrer #2 no cover sheet.
them: demurrer #2a (I called #3) with cover sheet requesting hearing date.
me: op. to dem #2a and 2.

The big question being raised and answered by mark is what differences are allowed between #2 and #2a, and can I ignore #2a. Mark has said it is a-ok for them to have both #2 and #2a, so long as #2a does not raise new rationales for the demurrer. To me this seems unfair. But I will accept what he says is true since I have nothing else to go on. If that is what the rules allow, that is what the rules allow.

Speaking of which, since the question was raised by Silverplum, I've discovered that there are no true local rules for this court, just the va supreme court's rules, which I always had but did not realize they are also used for this court. So he is partly correct but not 100%. (The court does have a strange and large local court procedures handbook, but it is $206 and no, there is no pdf version allowed, let alone a free one.)

Thanks for the clarification, Republicrat. Basically, I would say your opposition should cover 2a and 2. Whenever space is a limiting factor in a brief, focus on the other side's most damaging points (and/or your strongest ones). The fact that they "amended" 2 as 2a does not really give you grounds to complain since the change came before your opposition to the original 2.

In my case, for example, the defendants filed responses to my requests for admissions ("RFAs") and basically denied everything--even when it was documented in their own documents. Then, when defendants and I filed a required joint 3-page letter on the status of discovery ahead of a conference with the judge, I asked the judge to deem the denied RFAs as admitted. Soon after, the defendants sent me amended responses to the RFAs and largely reversed many of their original denials or answered in an evasive fashion. They did this--for many dozens of RFAs--long after the 30-day deadline for their responses and the day before the scheduled hearing with the judge to discuss the status of discovery. At that point, during the hearing, the judge asked to see the amended responses to the RFAs, which I subsequently filed for his review and for the record.

 

[republicrat]

In my case, for example, the defendants filed responses to my requests for admissions ("RFAs") and basically denied everything--even when it was documented in their own documents. Then, when defendants and I filed a required joint 3-page letter on the status of discovery ahead of a conference with the judge, I asked the judge to deem the denied RFAs as admitted. Soon after, the defendants sent me amended responses to the RFAs and largely reversed many of their original denials or answered in an evasive fashion. They did this--for many dozens of RFAs--long after the 30-day deadline for their responses and the day before the scheduled hearing with the judge to discuss the status of discovery. At that point, during the hearing, the judge asked to see the amended responses to the RFAs, which I subsequently filed for his review and for the record.

Any logical judge would assume if they were caught lying in the original RFA, that they are lying about everything else too. Do you think the judge is biased against you? Because that is a logical conclusion, if you were to ask me, based on your story.

 

[FlyingRon]

Any logical judge would assume if they were caught lying in the original RFA, that they are lying about everything else too. Do you think the judge is biased against you? Because that is a logical conclusion, if you were to ask me, based on your story.

Nonsense. A logical (and properly operating judge) won't assume anything. He waits until the parties provides sufficient evidence to prove or disprove any point. Bias wouldn't seem a logical conclusion either.

Neither one of you seems to have a clue about the law and you're hence unlikely to prevail without real legal counsel.

 

[Paul84]

Any logical judge would assume if they were caught lying in the original RFA, that they are lying about everything else too. Do you think the judge is biased against you? Because that is a logical conclusion, if you were to ask me, based on your story.

Judges are lawyers wearing robes and sporting a new title. Most federal judges made their money as corporate defense attorneys*. It's not surprising, therefore, that they and their law clerks, who recently paid big bucks to get their law degrees, are biased against any non-attorney, pro-se plaintiffs that can go toe to toe with the corporate defense attorneys on the other side.

* "Approximately 86% have been either corporate attorneys or prosecutors (and in some cases both)" -- from http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Prof-Diversity-Report-11.4.2014-FINAL.pdf Alliance for Justice, Nov 4, 2014, as referenced in the New York Times.

 

[FlyingRon]

Judges are lawyers wearing robes and sporting a new title. Most federal judges made their money as corporate defense attorneys*. It's not surprising, therefore, that they and their law clerks, who recently paid big bucks to get their law degrees, are biased against any non-attorney, pro-se plaintiffs that can go toe to toe with the corporate defense attorneys on the other side.

* "Approximately 86% have been either corporate attorneys or prosecutors (and in some cases both)" -- from http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Prof-Diversity-Report-11.4.2014-FINAL.pdf Alliance for Justice, Nov 4, 2014, as referenced in the New York Times.

Most judges are indeed attorneys, but why on earth does that surprise you. Knowledge of the law is essential for the job. Your reference does *NOT* jibe with what you said. The report actually states that 59% of the federal judge appointees were EITHER prosecutors or corporate lawyers. Actually, prosecutor to judge is quite common. Prosecutors aren't typically "big bucks" types and neither really are judges which is why it's a common transition. Most corporate lawyers do better staying in their practices than becoming a judge.

Note what's lacking in those perfunctory statistics is that ignores the fact that many of the appointees were in fact not practicing attorneys when appointed at all, but sitting judges at other levels.

There's certainly a well deserved bias against pro se litigants at the federal level because the judges expect those appearing to be well versed on the procedures and not to waste the courts time. An attorney that does so won't stay admitted to the court very long.

 

[Paul84]

Most judges are indeed attorneys, but why on earth does that surprise you. Knowledge of the law is essential for the job. Your reference does *NOT* jibe with what you said. The report actually states that 59% of the federal judge appointees were EITHER prosecutors or corporate lawyers. Actually, prosecutor to judge is quite common. Prosecutors aren't typically "big bucks" types and neither really are judges which is why it's a common transition. Most corporate lawyers do better staying in their practices than becoming a judge.

Note what's lacking in those perfunctory statistics is that ignores the fact that many of the appointees were in fact not practicing attorneys when appointed at all, but sitting judges at other levels.

There's certainly a well deserved bias against pro se litigants at the federal level because the judges expect those appearing to be well versed on the procedures and not to waste the courts time. An attorney that does so won't stay admitted to the court very long.

And where does your "59%" come from, as compared to the 86% quoted figure of the report's page 6?

 

[republicrat]

Most judges are indeed attorneys, but why on earth does that surprise you.

Paul84 wrote something different and narrower, which was that "Approximately 86% have been either corporate attorneys or prosecutors (and in some cases both)" This appears to be a fact. It is a useful (to me) fact. It is backed up by a url, furthering the point. He didn't cite the line (13) and the page number (6), but this is good enough for this forum.

I am the op. I am the one asking for assistance. Don't tell me that I, the op, don't appreciate Paul84's comments, because I really do, especially since there is not much other real and therefore actionable help anyone else is offering, Mark Maroon thankfully being a glaring exception. You are welcome to make these attacks against those who help me, to deter them, but given my current alignments of lack thereof you should anticipate this sort of response which will negate your intended goals.