There are important differences between state and federal civil practice.
Former NJSBA President Ralph J. Lamparello, Esq., Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, moderated a discussion among federal district court and magistrate judges and a retired Superior Court assignment judge in a candid dialogue about some of the most important distinctions between the two systems. The conversation ranged from complaints and orders to show cause, to motion practice in federal and state courts, to jury selection and e-Discovery – with an emphasis on federal practice and procedure.
The speakers included Federal District Court Judges Julien X. Neals and Michael A. Shipp, Federal Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre, and retired state Superior Court Assignment Judge Peter F. Bariso, Jr.
Here are a few tips:
The state court has a unified set of rules, but it is important to look at the federal district court judges’ websites for information about local preferences and practices.
Federal magistrate judges often work with multiple district court judges. State courts have divisions to hear different case types while federal judges can hear any kind of case.
State and federal court judges both urge adversaries to make sure everyone has notice, especially to resolve issues that might otherwise become an emergency.
In federal court, courtroom deputies can help schedule issues, and in state court, law clerks will often be able to handle that.