Eleventh Circuit Amends Rules on Extensions, Disclosures, and Admissions

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Atlanta

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Atlanta

The 11th Circuit will now allow a first request for extension of time of up to 14 days (instead of 7) – without having to certify pursuant to 11th Circuit Rule 26-1 that the requestor conferred with opposing counsel about the extension – which can be granted by the Clerk on a telephonic request, so long as the Court hasn’t established a written briefing schedule. 11th Cir. R. 31.2. Any request for an extension greater than 14 days still requires consultation with opposing counsel and a written motion, and the first request must still be made at least 7 days in advance.

The Court also amended the rules for filing a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement (CIP) to not only require the appellant or petitioner to file a CIP within 14 days of docketing of the appeal and to complete the web-based CIP form the same day, but to require all other parties to file a response to the CIP within 14 days either indicating the CIP is correct or adding additional interested persons or entities. 11th Cir. R. 26-1(a). The rule now clearly states that failure to complete the separate web form will subject a party to delay of the case and possible sanctions. 11th Cir. R. 26-1(b); 26.1-5. The rule change also clarifies the parties that need to be identified in various kinds of cases, speaking specifically to including the identity of the victims in criminal appeals, and the debtor, creditor’s committee members, and any entity which may be affected by the decision in bankruptcy appeals. 11th Cir. R. 26.1-2. Any amendments to the CIP must be brought to the Court’s attention, both in briefs and through the web-based CIP. 11th Cir. R. 26.1-4.

Finally, the attorney admission rules now impose a continuing obligation to notify the Court if an attorney’s status with any other bar lapses, and makes clear that attorneys applying for admission to the bar or to appear pro hac vice must be in good standing elsewhere. 11th Cir. R. 46-1, 46-4; 46-7. Renewal fees may now be paid online.

Download a copy of the new rules here. The Court’s summary table of the rule changes is available here.

A Little Breathing Room on 1.530 Motions

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

As previously reported, today is the day that November’s changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure go into effect [.pdf], including the change to Rule 1.530:

(b) Time for Motion. A motion for new trial or for rehearing shall be served not later than 10 15 days after the return of the verdict in a jury action or the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action….

Five more days to serve post-trial motions? Happy new year!

More Time to Serve Rule 1.530 Motion for New Trial or Rehearing

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

The Florida Supreme Court last week approved several changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure [.pdf]. The Rule change most likely to affect appellate practitioners — for the better — is the change to Rule 1.530:

Time for Motion. A motion for new trial or for rehearing shall be served not later than 1015 days after the return of the verdict in a jury action or the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action. A timely motion may be amended to state new grounds in the discretion of the court at any time before the motion is determined.

The time for service of a motion to alter or amend the judgment under 1.530(g) and for the court to grant rehearing on its own initiative under 1.530(d) is likewise expanded from 10 to 15 days.

This rule change is made without comment from the Supreme Court, but it makes a lot of sense. It can be quite difficult to obtain transcripts in time to prepare a good motion for rehearing, and having a transcript to support the motion is a great help to both the trial and appellate court. I am glad to see it. And the added bonus? Those who are not paying attention to the rule change will be early, rather than late, so this won’t cause a lot of litigation over timeliness of these (jurisdictional) motions.

The change is effective January 1, 2014.