Dazed&Bemused
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- California
There is an "active" civil case in Superior Court, which arose due to submitting a challenge to an arbitration. The arbitration concluded a couple years ago and the party has finally submitted a petition to confirm the award.
The petition was submitted as a "new" action, with the same case number as the open case, but it was filed by a different attorney. No substitution of attorney form was ever filed or served, although I thought that it would be required in a situation such as this. The new attorney is NOT a different attorney at the same firm, which, likely, would not require it.
I checked the court portal and there is a new (duplicate) case, with the same case number, but showing the roles of the parties reversed. Both "cases" show the full procedural history and have a new entry reflecting the filing of the petition. However, the attorney of record listed is the original attorney, not the one who filed the petition. I assume this is a related to the failure to substitute attorneys properly.
This causes me some confusion, because I believe it to be procedurally improper (not in conformance with the Rules of Court), and therefore, may be subject to dismissal by a preliminary motion, or at the time of the hearing (which hasn't yet been set, due to a backlog in the law and motion calendar) .
What is the "legal" effect of this scenario, as it relates to the validity of the submission, and, more importantly, to my obligations and/or options (i.e., to file a preliminary motion, such as a demurrer or a motion to quash and/or dismiss for insufficiency of process (not service of process)?)
Am I REQUIRED to respond to it according to the prescribed timeframe, as if it were procedurally proper, or is it a legal nullity?
To preempt the inevitability that it be suggested that I hire an attorney, I'll state, up front, that I cannot afford one, so it is not an option at this time,
Also, I expect that it will be proposed that it is irrelevant, as to any real impact upon the, ultimate, resolution of the case, and that any action taken, short of rendering a response, at this time, will only delay the inevitable. While I understand that is very likely the case, I'll also suggest that that is not an answer worthy of an attorney, and I would appreciate a more definite answer, rooted in law (based upon an actual rule, procedure or statute).
Thank you for your time and consideration.
The petition was submitted as a "new" action, with the same case number as the open case, but it was filed by a different attorney. No substitution of attorney form was ever filed or served, although I thought that it would be required in a situation such as this. The new attorney is NOT a different attorney at the same firm, which, likely, would not require it.
I checked the court portal and there is a new (duplicate) case, with the same case number, but showing the roles of the parties reversed. Both "cases" show the full procedural history and have a new entry reflecting the filing of the petition. However, the attorney of record listed is the original attorney, not the one who filed the petition. I assume this is a related to the failure to substitute attorneys properly.
This causes me some confusion, because I believe it to be procedurally improper (not in conformance with the Rules of Court), and therefore, may be subject to dismissal by a preliminary motion, or at the time of the hearing (which hasn't yet been set, due to a backlog in the law and motion calendar) .
What is the "legal" effect of this scenario, as it relates to the validity of the submission, and, more importantly, to my obligations and/or options (i.e., to file a preliminary motion, such as a demurrer or a motion to quash and/or dismiss for insufficiency of process (not service of process)?)
Am I REQUIRED to respond to it according to the prescribed timeframe, as if it were procedurally proper, or is it a legal nullity?
To preempt the inevitability that it be suggested that I hire an attorney, I'll state, up front, that I cannot afford one, so it is not an option at this time,
Also, I expect that it will be proposed that it is irrelevant, as to any real impact upon the, ultimate, resolution of the case, and that any action taken, short of rendering a response, at this time, will only delay the inevitable. While I understand that is very likely the case, I'll also suggest that that is not an answer worthy of an attorney, and I would appreciate a more definite answer, rooted in law (based upon an actual rule, procedure or statute).
Thank you for your time and consideration.
