Fighting credit bureaus, creditors and debt buyers

3 extra days to respond or reply to motions for mailing even when filing electronically | Electronic filing in Arizona federal court | Litigation Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
3 extra days to respond or reply to motions for mailing even when filing electronically
Midland attorney Andrew Campbell either doesn't know about this rule or he DELIBERATELY filed his "Notice" with the court, falsely claiming that I failed to timely file my opposition to his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
October 27, 2013
10:56 pm
Avatar
christine
Admin
Forum Posts: 36
Member Since:
May 5, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

On Friday attorney Andrew Campbell filed his notice, claiming that I failed to oppose his motion for judgment and that my response to his motion was due after 14 days, on Thursday.  I spent several hours searching the web, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and the local rules to see whether the rules had changed to no longer provide for the additional 3 days for "mailing" when filing electronically.  I filed my request for an extension to respond (which he opposed) just before midnight -- after a LONG day, driving a neighbor to the airport in Las Vegas.

Just now I found the answer loud and clear in the ECF FAQ:

The Federal Rules governing the computation of deadlines still apply to all filed documents, including those file electronically, so the 3-day mailing time would apply as provided by the Rules.
 Can't wait to see what the judge has to say about that.
 
 Has the Rule regarding mailing response time changed?
July 14, 2015
12:47 pm
Avatar
christine
Admin
Forum Posts: 36
Member Since:
May 5, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A very late update:

Judge David Campbell had NOTHING to say.  If he had just a shred of integrity, he would have sanctioned attorney Andrew Campbell for this incredibly low blow.

For reasons unknown to me, my case was later reassigned to another judge and incredibly, I heard that scum sucking bottom feeding creditor attorney Andrew Campbell became an administrative law judge.

This 33rd degree moron is now a judge!

And I'm dealing with new scum sucking bottom feeding creditor lawyers just like David Campbell.  There's no shortage of lawyers who'll do anything for a buck.  The devil's henchmen ...

Forum Timezone: America/Phoenix

Most Users Ever Online: 27

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

desert316: 1

colorfinger: 1

blastfrompast: 1

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 9

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 2

Forums: 11

Topics: 30

Posts: 37

Newest Members:

Kerri, colorfinger, CoitisUMidland, blastfrompast, gmariel13, jawllms, desert316, Garyt, toman67, christine

Administrators: christine: 36