California Personal Injury Litigation and Proof of Service for Electronic Service

January 7, 2013 Leave a comment

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Electronic service is a cost-effective manner of service, whether done in Federal cases with CM/ECF, or in California superior courts by stipulation, or in conjunction with electronic filing.  For California superior court cases, the Judicial Council has created an optional proof of service for electronic service, FORM POS-050/EFS-050, which needs to be used in conjunction with Form POS-o50(P).  However, if you follow the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 2.251(g) the practitioner does not need to use the optional Judicial Council form.

California Rules of Court Rule 2.251(g) requires the following information:

(1)Proof of electronic service may be by any of the methods provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a, except that the proof of service must state:

(A)The electronic service address of the person making the service, in addition to that person’s residence or business address;

(B)The date and time of the electronic service, instead of the date and place of deposit in the mail;

(C)The name and electronic service address of the person served, in place of that person’s name and address as shown on the envelope; and

(D)That the document was served electronically, in place of the statement that the envelope was sealed and deposited in the mail with postage fully prepaid.

(2)Proof of electronic service may be in electronic form and may be filed electronically with the court.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Civil Procedure, Dangerous Dogs, Evidence, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Municipal Law, Park Accident, Pedestrian Accident, Personal Injury Law, Personal Property Law, Proof of Service, Requests for Admission, San Bernardino County Incorporated Cities and Towns Tagged with , , ,

California Personal Injury Litigation – The Importance of Preserving Evidence

October 16, 2011 Leave a comment

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

If you have been injured in an accident, the most important thing is to make sure you receive medical attention and medical attention for others around you.

However, even if you do not presently have the intention of recovering your damages, there are a few simple steps you can do at the time of the incident, and in the days and weeks following. Missing these opportunities can compromise efforts for compensation.

If you can, take pictures immediately.  With the quality of phone cameras increasing, take as many pictures as possible of the scene of the accident.  For example, in a slip and fall, the condition will be quickly remedied, so if you or your friends or family can take a picture, it can preserve important evidence.  Also, have someone take a picture of your visible injuries. The sooner the pictures are taken after the accident, the better.  In the case of a flooding event or fire, take video during the event.  Again, cameras have excellent video cameras these days.  The new Apple iPhone 4s takes full high definition video, for example.

If there are witnesses, try to get business cards or phone numbers, or some contact information.  If there is a police report, obtain it as soon as possible.  Obtain any other reports.

Get copies of your records regarding medical treatment including billing.  These records can be obtained from your medical providers.  Obtain records of time missed from work.

In slip and falls and trip and falls, the condition of shoes is often an issue.  Keep the shoes, and don’t wear them again.  If you have clothes or other property, preserve them, too.  If you have to repair property, such as a car, make sure that pictures are taken before the repairs.  Take pictures from different angles.  We no longer live in an age where you could only take a few pictures before running out of film.

Remember that you likely face statutes of limitations that can impact your ability to be compensated for your losses.  If a government agency is involved, typically a government claim is required before you file suit, and generally the government claim must be filed six months from the date of the incident.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Address: 300 E. State St. #517
                   Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Bicycle Accident, Dangerous Dogs, Discovery, Evidence, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Municipal Law, Park Accident, Pedestrian Accident, Personal Injury Law, Personal Property Law, Requests for Admission, San Bernardino County Incorporated Cities and Towns Tagged with , , ,

New California Case Rules Plaintiff Entitiled to Recover the Reasonable and Necessary Costs Caused by Someone Who Wrongfully Injured Cat

June 1, 2011 Leave a comment

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A new case in the First District Court of Appeals, Division 1, Kimes v. Grosser (May 31, 2011), 2011 WL 2128649:

“Under Civil Code section 3333 plaintiff may present evidence of the bills incurred to save the cat’s life and is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary costs caused by someone who wrongfully injured the cat. Defendants are entitled to present evidence why the costs were unreasonable under the circumstances.” Id. at *4.

The Court gives the background of the case is:

Plaintiff Kevin Kimes alleges as follows: His pet cat Pumkin was shot with a pellet gun on October 28, 2005, while perched on a fence between his property and that of defendants Charles Grosser et al. Emergency surgery costing $6,000 saved Pumkin’s life, but left Pumkin partially paralyzed, and plaintiff incurred an additional $30,000 in expenses caring for Pumkin because of the injury. Plaintiff contends the shot that wounded Pumkin was fired from defendants’ backyard, and defendants Charles or Joseph Grosser were responsible for the “willful[ ] and malicious[ ]” shooting.

Plaintiff filed this suit to recover amounts paid for Pumkin’s care as a result of the shooting, and punitive damages. Defendants filed motions in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s expenses caring for Pumkin, a cat they described as “an adopted stray of very low economic value,” on the theory that their liability was limited to the amount by which the shooting reduced Pumkin’s fair market value. When the court granted the motions at the outset of the trial, plaintiff declined to proceed, effectively conceding that Pumkin had no market value that justified the expenses of trial. Plaintiff’s appeal is from the judgment of dismissal entered on his failure to prosecute. Id. at *1

The dismissal was reversed by the Court. The takeaway from this decision is that animals will not be treated exactly like other property.

I once argued in the alternative that the value of an animal was limited to its fair market value. That dog was a German Shepherd named Woman. The dog attacked the police officers during a neighborhood evacuation when an unexploded bomb was found nearby. Non-lethal force (mace) was used before the dog was shot, and the dog survived for another year before being put down.

Unlike the case with Pumkin, the judge ruled that Woman’s shooting was within the discretionary immunity under the Government Code, and because the officers were immune, the City of San Bernardino was immune. Judgment was entered in favor of my client, the City of San Bernardino. There is a saying that “this case is a real dog” and sometimes, it is true.

In my time as an attorney, I’ve come across a variety of pet names. The City of San Bernardino had an arson dog named Cinder. Another Deputy City Attorney had an appeal of a determination to destroy a dog named Biscuit (who was later absolved because there was a “counterfeit Biscuit” running around the neighborhood, causing the mayhem attributed to Biscuit). Dangerous dog hearings and appeals are the less glamorous side of municipal law.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

A: 1255 W. Colton Ave. Suite 104, Redlands, CA 92374
T: (909) 708-6055

Filed under Animals, Cats, City of Redlands, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, Dangerous Dogs, Dogs, Municipal Law, Personal Injury Law, Personal Property Law Tagged with , , , ,