1. Having an opposing counsel who fights every action and works to deny us getting evidence into the record before trial, we wanted to make sure that the ground rules were clear.

2. We filed a Request for Admission (RFA) attaching the Causes of Action with their Elements as taken directly from The Course. We asked the Defendant to admit/deny that these in fact were the proper elements. Defendant denied.

3. We filed a Motion in Limine (MIL) asking that these be entered into evidence as the proper cause of action elements for our Complaint. During a motion hearing the judge took the motion under advisement.

4. Upon MIL deferral we filed a Motion to take Judicial Notice (MJN) that these are the proper elements.

5. Questions

a. Why wouldn’t a judge make an immediate ruling?

b. Aren’t causes of action and their elements standard within a jurisdiction?

c. How does one verify that specific causes of action that are permissible in a particular jurisdiction?

d. Once the causes of action are known, how does one determine what the jurisdiction/Court considers to be the correct elements?

e. Has anyone had a similar experience?

f. Having causes of action & elements challenged at trial would seem to be a disaster. How to avoid this potential problem?
?
?

Here's my thoughts Bill for what it's worth..lol.
2. As per RFA and defendant denied. Have you looked up the cause of action that you filed and then looked up the elements for that cause of action in your jurisdiction? Perhaps one of the elements was misstated or missing He is not required to make a conclusion of law. Or maybe he denied in bad faith, he is the other side after all.
3. Motion in limine. You asked that the judge to practice law or make a declarative judgment that might be why the judge took your motion under advisement so that he could look into the statutory and case law before he rules on the motion. Look on the bright side, the judge took it under advisement, and he didn’t rule against you.
4. As for your motion to take judicial notice. He probably needed to look up the case law and evidence rules.Judges don’t always know the law off the top of their head and he will want to rule correctly. I don’t know the rule in your state, but in mine some things he must take notice of, some are discretionary.
b. not all jurisdictions have exactly the same elements. Usually not less, sometimes more.
c. How does one verify causes of action in a jurisdiction? Go to the extras tab then hit research tools then hit Florida then search for your cause of action and elements.
d. Question d would be the same as above. Search in Florida for element of whatever cause of action you are suing for, if you do the above you will have verified the elements and you will avoid the disaster. If you do the research on the elements for the cause of action in your jurisdiction and read the cases law preferably from the appellate or supreme court of your state that is the controlling law, law that controls the judge. that’s good enough.
Hope that helps.

Tom,

1. Your thoughts are valuable & most appreciated. You seem to have a good grasp of The Course, have hands-on-experience and have taken the time to construct thoughtful responses. Some comments corresponding to your paragraphs.

2. Your Para 2. Re: "... per RFA and defendant denied." Defendant replied "vague, ambiguous and contain form and content not subject to or appropriate for a Request for Admissions". We filed a MTC in Case A with a motion hearing set for 3/6. (There are two separate cases.)

3. Your Para 2. Re: " Have you looked up the cause of action ... in your jurisdiction? "Yes, we had. In doing the research:

a. Under The Course's tab "Extras" there are official Rules of the Court. We had been there previously, searching Florida Statutes, Rules of Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure, Small Claims Rules -- found mention, but noting definitional, on causes of action.

b. We did as you suggested, going to the online research tool (as we'd done before). We still got the "search may take a long time ...) message. It ran for hours. Perhaps there is an extra charge to activate this capability.

c. There is a site (floridalegalwiki.com) that has a list of Causes of Action & Elements (CoA/E) that corresponds to those in The Course (which were the basis of our Complaints) .

4. Your Para 3. Re: "You asked the judge .." ".. took it under advisement, .." This is where my confusion begins (& may end).
a. Why wouldn't the judge know the causes of action & elements within his jurisdiction?

b. A "take it under advisement" means we don't get an answer until ten days before trial Isn't that an unnecessary penalty (on us)?
c. Why such strong objection/insertion of confusion from the opposing attorney?

d. Why must one jump through hoops to determine the rules?

Continued in the next post.

Continued ..

5. Your Para 4. Re: "He probably needed to look it up." Our MIL provided the citations.

a. Florida Evidence Rules 90.201 though 207 cover judicial notice. 90.201 covers matters which must be judicially noticed.—"A court shall take judicial notice of: (2)?Florida rules of court that have statewide application, its own rules, ........"

b. The ruling was "denied without prejudice to offer at trial."

c. Same type questions as above.

i. Why wouldn't the judge know the causes of action & elements within his jurisdiction?

ii. Why delay a ruling? This means we don't get an answer until ten days before trial Isn't that an unnecessary penalty (on us)?

iii. Concerning the judge's ruling.
1. Does the "denied" contradict the "must"?
2. Or did he only defer his "must"?
3. Or doesn't 90.201 apply (it seems clear enough)?
4. Or by "offer at trial" did he legitimately evade the ruling?

Tom, the bottom line why is this not straight-forward, procedural matter?

Thanks,

Bill
?

Bill
I will get back to you probably tomorrow as I am limited to the time that my generator is running.I know what you mean about the course look up tool as I have had the same problem I am on dial up.slower than a snail.lol

P.S
are you in your states small claims div.as I looked into Florida civil procedure and small claims seems to have only limited use of the rules of procedure.I have a site I will send you when I get back to you tomorrow
till then.
Tom

1. Motion to determining sufficiency. This motion is what I think you need when the other side gives insufficient responses to RFA. If the other side objects to your RFA he must give specific reasons, if you feel he hasn’t then go after him with this motion. Good example in the course if this motion is granted the court will deem the answers as admitted for all purposes and that’s what you want on your motion that is.
2. As for your motion for judicial notice. The court deferred until pretrial hearing when if it is a bona fide cause of action he will have to take judicial notice or he will be corrected on appeal. Anything beyond dispute. It also has to be relevant. You must also have a copy for the other side for this motion hearing and the judge.
If you are trying to get a report from a branch of government it should b e sworn to by the keeper of it by affidavit or live testimony at trial or by deposition. There are other ways to get it into the record. But I don’t know all the rules of evidence in Florida.

The judge how ever if he takes notice at the pretrial hearing or at trial he will have to use it as true for all purposes at trial. Ask him to take J.N. at pretrial or again at trial .I think he just wants to deal with it all at once .Get your evidence in before all this and be ready at this pretrial hearing with all your evidence and report and file that motion to determine the sufficiency of your RFA then when you win the motion and get an order the other party will have to comply or you will then file a motion to show cause we wont get into that yet. Maybe your will get your admission and you won’t have to go there.

5. He would, and he will have to take J>N> probably at the pretrial hearing if your cause of action is one approved in your jurisdiction.

Concerning the judges ruling.
1. No the judge just put it off to the pretrial . lets face it, it’s easier for him plain and simple. He will have both parties at the pretrial and he doesn’t have to work as hard.
2. Yes he deferred his must.
3. As t

2. Yes he deferred his must.
3. As to apply it may. I looked up your jurisdiction and the judge has discretion in what rules of civil procedure he will apply.
4. His ruling to offer at trial he did not erase the ruling only put it off until later.

Bill as for ??? this is not just straight forward.

Bottom line.
This is court. It keeps lawyers making a living and people won’t take the time to learn so they have a monopoly that is as long as we let them. How about we don’t! if we begin to go in front of judges and are prepared and know the rules maybe then they will show pro se
parties a little more respect. I have watched hearing and trial where pro se people get up and make a fool of themselves and then can’t seem to figure out why they are ruled against they think that it’s all just a rip off. It’s not easy but if you know the rules you can win. I have had lawyers ask for sanctions and the judge ruled in my favor because they didn’t know the correct rules don’t be intimidated and don’t give up. Don’t expect the judge to help he
probably won’t, if he does all the better

Hope that helps
Tom