Here is the basics of the case. A pro se Plaintiff had sent the Defendants a Summons and Complaint. The Defendant did NOT respond within the time allotted by law so they filed a motion for default judgment. The Pro Se Plaintiff realized they did not follow the correct service and just did a certified mail, so they filed a dismiss case WITH Prejudice with the court and re-served the Defendant with a certified Signature Confirmation, which the defendants did sign for.
The Plaintiffs filed a default Motion again because the defendants did NOT respond with in the legal time. They did not send an Answer to the Plaintiffs but they did electronically respond to the OLD case number NOT the current case number.
The argument will be the Plaintiffs (Pro Se) followed the law and did proper served but the defendant’s lawyer did error and did not serve the plaintiffs and they provided an answer to the wrong case which effectively was closed and dismissed WITH Prejudice.
The Lawyer made several mistakes and should be held at a higher standard and the Court should NOT be allowed to excuse this behaviors since the Plaintiffs are entitled to the default judgment, regardless of the mistakes of the Defendents lawyers.
Looking for at least 3+ cases and argument where the Pro Se or any Plaintiffs won the case and the court did NOT allow the excuse of the Defendants lawyer.
8 Cal.4th 975 (1994) 884 P.2d 126 35 Cal. Rptr.2d 669 HAL RAPPLEYEA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEN CAMPBELL et al., Defendants and Appellants. Docket No. S035028. Supreme Court of California.
The case described above is Rappleyea v. Campbell, a legal dispute that took place in California in 1994. The main issue in this case was whether a default should be set aside and a default judgment reversed based on an abuse of discretion. The defendants, who were residents of Arizona, were personally served with a summons and complaint but were misinformed about the correct filing fee for their answer. Due to this misinformation and other miscommunications, the defendants’ answer was filed eight days late, resulting in a default judgment against them for over $200,000.
The court considered whether equitable relief should be granted based on extrinsic mistake, which refers to circumstances outside the litigation that unfairly caused a party to miss a hearing on the merits. The court applied a stringent three-part test to qualify for equitable relief from default on the basis of extrinsic mistake:
- The defaulted party must demonstrate a meritorious case.
- The party seeking to set aside the default must provide a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action.
- The moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once discovered.
In this case, the court found that the defendants had a satisfactory excuse for their late filing, as they were misinformed about the correct filing fee. The court also determined that the defendants had a meritorious case and acted diligently in seeking to set aside the default once they learned of it. Therefore, the court held that the default must be set aside and the default judgment reversed.
It is worth noting that the court emphasized that self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment, and procedural rules must generally apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who represent themselves. However, in this unique case, the court found that the circumstances warranted equitable relief.
Key Points:
- Defendants were misinformed about the correct filing fee for their answer, leading to a default judgment against them.
- The court applied a stringent three-part test to determine if equitable relief was appropriate.
- The court found that the defendants had a satisfactory excuse for their late filing, a meritorious case, and acted diligently to seek relief from default.
- Equitable relief was granted to set aside the default and reverse the default judgment.
56 Cal.Rptr.3d 437 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262 Ilie BURNETE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LA CASA DANA APARTMENTS et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. G037377. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3.”
The case involves a personal injury action brought by Ilie Burnete against La Casa Dana Apartments, L’Abri Management, Inc., and Sera Trust, collectively referred to as La Casa Dana. The case revolves around the alleged dangerous condition of an apartment complex staircase.
Key points from the case are as follows:
- Ilie Burnete, a self-represented litigant, brought the personal injury action against La Casa Dana.
- A judgment of nonsuit was entered against Burnete, which means the court found that Burnete failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim, and the case was dismissed.
- Burnete later filed a motion to set aside the judgment, claiming that his lack of legal expertise and limited knowledge of California law were mistakes or excusable neglect justifying a set aside.
- The trial court denied Burnete’s motion, stating that he failed to seek relief within a reasonable time after the judgment was entered, and he did not establish that the judgment was taken against him due to a mistake or excusable neglect.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that Burnete’s lack of legal representation was not grounds for exceptionally lenient treatment, and he had his day in court to present his case.
Overall, the court ruled against Burnete, stating that self-representation does not grant special privileges, and Burnete’s lack of success in the trial was not due to third-party misrepresentation or procedural errors but rather his inability to present his case effectively as a self-represented litigant.
507 U.S. 380 (1993) PIONEER INVESTMENT SERVICES CO. v. BRUNSWICK ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al. No. 91-1695. United States Supreme Court et al.,”
is a United States Supreme Court decision that was argued on November 30, 1992, and decided on March 24, 1993. The case involved a bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
In this case, the petitioner filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition and later filed a list of its creditors. The bankruptcy court set a bar date for the creditors to file proofs of claim. The respondents, however, failed to file their proofs of claim by the bar date and subsequently sought to file them late, arguing that their failure was due to “excusable neglect.”
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents’ failure to file their proofs of claim on time could be considered “excusable neglect” under Rule 9006(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Rule 9006(b)(1) allows a court to accept late filings if the failure to act was the result of “excusable neglect.”
The Court held that “excusable neglect” under Rule 9006(b)(1) is not limited to cases where the failure to act was due to circumstances beyond the party’s control. Instead, it can encompass situations where the failure was due to inadvertence, mistake, or negligence. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether the neglect is excusable is an equitable one, taking into account various factors, including the potential prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the party acted in good faith.
In this particular case, the Court found that the respondents’ failure to file their proofs of claim on time was excusable because there was no prejudice to the debtor, the delay was not significant, and the reason for the delay was related to the unusual form of notice provided by the bankruptcy court.
Overall, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had held that the respondents’ neglect was excusable and permitted their late filing of proofs of claim.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )