An interlocutory order is an order which does not dispose of all parties and all claims, and therefore, is generally not immediately appealable.
For example: Bank sues you to collect a debt. You countersue under the DTPA. Bank moves for summary judgment on all claims. The court grants the Bank's motion for summary judgment as to its collection claim against you, but denies its motion as to your DTPA claim against the Bank. That summary judgment would be an interlocutory order because...
While the judge can review whatever he wants, he will actually decide the motion based on the pleadings, the motion, the response (if any), the reply (if any) and, most importantly, the admissible evidence on file. Most evidence in summary judgment practice is in the form of affidavits, relevant documents and selected excerpts of deposition transcripts. As the non-movant, you can both object to the evidence offered by the movant (the Defendants in your case) and attach your own evidence to...
You can civilly sue the recipient of the funds for Money Had and Received.
Since the essential inquiry in a Money Had and Received suit is whether the defendant has received money that rightfully belongs to another, it is very likely you will prevail, assuming the facts as you have stated them are correct.
Now that a judgment has been rendered, the more immediately relevant inquiry is what can be done about it. Contact a Wisconsin attorney about your options under Wis. Stat. § 806.07 or any other avenue for attacking a default judgment under Wisconsin law of which he is aware. Do not attempt to collaterally attack the Wisconsin judgment in Alaska, as an Alaskan court is powerless to disturb a judgment of a sister state.
I respectfully disagree with my colleague from Oregon's "legal, but...
You sure can, but consider whether that is a wise strategy. If your witness is friendly and will be available for trial, deposing him now will give your opposition a free preview of his trial testimony, making your witness much more vulnerable to cross examination at trial.
You will have to dislose your witness in response to a Request for Disclosure, which may prompt your opposition to subpoena the witness for deposition, but if that happens, your opposition will have to pay for the...
You can specially except. Google "Special Exceptions Texas."
If you were sued for breach of contract, the plaintiff (or counterclaimant) has to plead what the terms of the contract were, how you failed to perform and how that breach damaged them.
If you had a contract with them to perform consulting services in exchange for payment, and after you rendered those services, they failed to pay, then you can sue them for breach of contract (by way of counterclaim if they sued you first).
You will not find a "form" or "canned" response to a motion to reconisder. If you are without an attorney, you can hand write or type the response yourself (assuming the response is on behalf of yourself, and not a company).
Put the style of the case and cause number at the top, re-urge the arguments contained in your original motion for continuance in the body, sign your name (indicate that your proceeding pro se), list your address and phone number, and file it with the court.
Assuming they sued you for breach of contract, the limitations period is 4 years.
It is essential that you file an Answer to the petition as soon as possible if you have not already done so. By simply filing an Answer (whether pro se or through your counsel), you will buy yourself some time to negotiate or consider a litigation strategy.
Since the collection industry is built upon the default judgment, it is not in a collection attorney's business model to try cases. Therefore, a...
You should do both, and if you retain an attorney quickly enough, have your attorney send the validation letter. If not, sending it yourself is fine. See 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b) to see what you should be asking for.
If he makes any further effort to collect from you, prior to sending you the information described in 1692g(b), you can sue him and collect a minimum of $1,000 in statutory damages plus attorney's fees.
A party seeking affirmative relief is a party that is asking the court for something it doesn't already have, such as sole custody when it currently has joint custody. This is distinguished from a party that is not actually asking the court for anything, except that it deny the relief sought by the opposing party.
The reason for the later deadlne for the party not seeking affirmative relief is to give that party an opportunity to retain and designate its own expert(s) to contradict the...