In 2017, the Office of the Court of Appeal will introduce electronic filing and begin charging a fee when filing a complaint. In order to take account of these initiatives, Rule 6 is amended to take account of the fact that fees and charges are payable at the opening of proceedings, except in certain circumstances, and are not guaranteed under the previous procedure for the presentation of a cost guarantee. The subdivision of this rule, which in certain circumstances concerned the transfer of debt securities, is deleted as unnecessary in view of the amendment of Article 6. (b) [Preliminary observations] The panels may, from time to time and at their discretion, make preliminary observations in cases scheduled for oral proceedings. These preliminary observations are made before the statement of reasons and the parties are informed that the court is prepared to rule in the manner indicated in the preliminary observations. The hearing remains scheduled unless all parties inform the Registrar, within a time limit set by the panel, that it is no longer desired. Subparagraph (c) has been amended to reduce the number of copies to be filed with the initial application for admissibility of the appeal from six to five. Subsection (c) has also been amended to determine the colour of the envelopes of applications and replies filed in accordance with Rule 11. (b) [Format] All documents filed electronically must comply with the format requirements of Rule 8.74 of the California Court Rules.
Electronic pleadings must comply with the substantive and formal requirements of California`s Rules of Procedure, Rules 8.74 and 8.204, with the exception of provisions that deal exclusively with paper-based requirements. Procedural documents and improperly formatted exhibits may be rejected. (d) [In the case of hearings in camera], copies of hearings held in camera or under lock and key shall be transmitted only to that court and sealed copies shall not be made available to counsel for either party, unless this is done at the request and with the authorization of that court. If provided on paper, an original and two copies of the sealed transcript must be attached to the record when it is certified and given to this court. When provided in electronic form, a separately stored file is provided that contains only the confidential transcript. (k) [Registration Fee] TrueFiling is a private seller under contract with the court. TrueFiling will charge the selling fee for each submission in accordance with the schedule posted on its website, which has been approved by the court. Electronic filing fees are considered recoverable costs under Rule 8.278(d)(1)(D) of the California Rules of Justice. TrueFiling will be designated as the court`s agent to collect court-imposed fees if necessary for a deposit, as well as for any associated credit or bank card fees or comfort fees (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.78; Government Code, § 6159). Since the purpose of the penalties provided for in Article 11 is to deter rather than compensate, the rule provides that a fine, if imposed, should normally be paid to the court as a penalty. However, in exceptional circumstances, in particular in the case of a breach of [subsection] (b)(1), deterrence may be ineffective unless the sanction not only obliges the person who breaks the rule to make a monetary payment, but also indicates that part or all of the payment is paid to the persons harmed by the breach. Accordingly, the rule allows the court, if requested in an application and if justified, to award the lawyer`s fees to another party. However, such allocation to another party should not exceed the costs and attorneys` fees for services directly and inevitably caused by the breach of the certification requirement. For example, if a wholly untenable burden has been included in a multiple action or counterclaim in order to unnecessarily increase the costs of litigation for a penniless counterparty, any award of costs should be limited to those directly caused by the inclusion of the inadmissible head and not to those resulting from the filing of the complaint or the response itself. The award should not provide for compensation for services that could have been avoided by prior disclosure of evidence or prior challenge to unfounded allegations or objections. In addition, the partial reimbursement of fees may be a sufficient deterrent to offences committed by persons with modest financial resources.
In cases brought under laws that provide for the awarding of fees to the prevailing parties, this rule does not require the court to transfer costs in a manner that would be inconsistent with the standards governing the legal allocation of fees, as set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). Arguments in favour of extending, amending or reversing existing laws or creating a new right do not violate paragraph (b)(2) unless they are « frivolous ». This establishes an objective standard to eliminate any « empty and pure » justification for manifestly frivolous arguments. However, the extent to which a litigant has researched the issues and found support for his or her theories, even in minority opinions, in law journal articles, or in consultation with other counsel, should certainly be taken into account in determining whether subsection (2) has been violated ..