NJSBA Family Law Section

Mates,

So, my adversary and I agreed to submit a proposed Case Management Order on the papers in lieu of an expensive appearance for our clients.  The Case Management Order was just returned, signed and filed and with a stamp reading: "the proposed dates are not acceptable."  This is fine, of course.  However, the new dates require discovery to be propounded not only before the order was even entered but before the Case Management Conference was even scheduled?   Propound by April 1, Order entered April 6?  The Complaint was filed on February 8th?  It's on the Standard Track?

With hands in air,
Andrew

------------------------------
Andrew Bestafka Esq.
Freehold NJ
(732)898-2378
------------------------------

Original Message------

Mates,

So, my adversary and I agreed to submit a proposed Case Management Order on the papers in lieu of an expensive appearance for our clients.  The Case Management Order was just returned, signed and filed and with a stamp reading: "the proposed dates are not acceptable."  This is fine, of course.  However, the new dates require discovery to be propounded not only before the order was even entered but before the Case Management Conference was even scheduled?   Propound by April 1, Order entered April 6?  The Complaint was filed on February 8th?  It's on the Standard Track?

With hands in air,
Andrew

------------------------------
Andrew Bestafka Esq.
Freehold NJ
(732)898-2378
------------------------------

Original Message------

Mates,

So, my adversary and I agreed to submit a proposed Case Management Order on the papers in lieu of an expensive appearance for our clients.  The Case Management Order was just returned, signed and filed and with a stamp reading: "the proposed dates are not acceptable."  This is fine, of course.  However, the new dates require discovery to be propounded not only before the order was even entered but before the Case Management Conference was even scheduled?   Propound by April 1, Order entered April 6?  The Complaint was filed on February 8th?  It's on the Standard Track?

With hands in air,
Andrew

------------------------------
Andrew Bestafka Esq.
Freehold NJ
(732)898-2378
------------------------------

Original Message------

I LIKE "WITH HANDS IN AIR"

 

Sharon Ransavage

 

Original Message------

I LIKE "WITH HANDS IN AIR"

 

Sharon Ransavage

 

Original Message------

Either:
<x-tab>        </x-tab>(1) It's a case where the judge was frustrated because the complaint wasn't served for a long time and/or default was entered and then vacated and it's thus aging and the judge is reacting to the pressure they get from the PJFP who gets it from the AJSC who gets it from the AOC who gets it from the Senate Judiciary Committee when they complain about how long divorces take and gripe about the judiciary budget,
<x-tab>        </x-tab>(2) Judge did it too quickly and made a mistake, or
<x-tab>        </x-tab>(3) Judge isn't competent. It happens sometimes. I'm reviewing a transcript for an appeal where, I kid you not, the decision section on alimony says: "Defendant earns $81,000 per year and will be paying $70,000 in alimony." You can't make this stuff up.

You can write the judge, perhaps propose a new CMO by consent with more realistic - yet still expedited - dates, but ... what I'd suggest is that you and your adversary just agree in writing on a different schedule. The only date that really matters in the CMO is the ESP date. No reason you can't adjust the other ones. It's not like the judge is going to be out of things to do and call and say "Hey, did those roggs ever go out in the Smith case? Is discovery still pending?"


<x-sigsep>

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
   www.MurphyExposed.org
----------------------------------------------------
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax:    609-737-3222

</x-sigsep>