OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF 'S MOTION FOR DEFENDANT TO ADVANCE ATTORNEYS ' FEES and COSTS
COMES NOW, the Defendant, Michael A. McNeil, and opposes the Plaintiff 's Motion for Defendant to Advance Attorney’s Fees and Costs and states the following:
1. The Plaintiff’s Motion is not properly before this court since she failed to bring it pursuant any applicable rule since the matter before this court is a child custody/support matter and not a divorce/alimony/property settlement matter which Sections 7-107, 8-214, and 11-110 of the Maryland Code 's Family Law Article are concerned with. (See ¶¶ 8 through 10 of this document)
2. If the Plaintiff had brought her request before this Court pursuant to Section 12-103 of the Family Law Article this …show more content…
In order for this Court to grant attorney’s fees and costs, under Section 12-103 it is required to perform a Section 12-103(b)(3) analysis in order to determine whether either party had a substantial justification for bringing, maintaining, or defending the proceeding. Since this requires the Court to perform a retrospective analysis, it is impossible for this Court to perform the analysis at this point in the litigation.
5. However, if the Court was to perform a Section 12-103(b)(3) analysis today, it would find that the Defendant’s prima facie case is well supported by police reports, school records, an expert witness report, the Plaintiff’s own testimony, the Plaintiff’s own admissions, and the Defendant’s testimony. Whereas, the Plaintiff’s prima facie case is not so well supported. (See ¶¶ 31 through 38 of this document).
6. Additionally, the Plaintiff is seeking $20,000 in attorney fees for discovery, expert witness, and other costs. It should be noted that accordance with Scheduling Order (D.E. 588) the period for Discovery came to an end on June 2, 2016, and the times for designating experts ended on June 8, 2016. Also., neither times for designating experts or discovery has been extended. However, the Defendant has moved to extend discovery so that police records could become part of the record and to
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).
1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).
In the case of Bruce and Douglas  FamCA80, proceedings relate to parenting arrangements for the child L Douglas, between the applicant Ms Bruce, who is the child’s mother, and the respondent Mr Douglas, who is the child’s father. The child, aged two and a half years at the time of the hearing, has lived with her mother since her birth in April 2011, and has spent very limited time with her father. The mother seeks orders that the child
11. The Division is permitted access to Ms. Gueits’ home and shall make a child welfare referral to Florida regarding housing assistance and services being implemented for the children once physical custody is transferred to Ms.
DISPOSITION: [**1] Defendant 's motion to compel Brennan to arbitrate denied. Brennan 's cross-motion to strike the defense of arbitration and stay arbitration granted.
In contrast, the case In Re Southard, 365 P.3d 1089 (2015), the court found that the nonparent should have custody of the child due to a child-parent relationship. In this case, the mother had married two men Southard and Larkins twice. Southard, 365 P.3d at 1092. The result of these multiple unions was three children. Southard, 365 P.3d at 1092. At the end the mother’s fourth marriage with Southard, he received custody of all three children including AR who was not Southard’s biological child, but Larkins. Id. The mother petitioned for custody, but custody was denied. Id. The court found that Southard had physical custody of AR for a year and had developed a child-parent relationship. Id. The court also decided that the time Southard spent with AR were not caused by custodial inference, but by the marriage of the mother and Southard. Id. at 105.
Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were
The Defendant has attempted several times attempted to contact the Plaintiff concerning reunification therapy and the status of his daughter. The Plaintiff has refused to return any of his phone calls and has refused to inform him about anything concerning his daughter.
Id. at 67. The Court stated that the statute allowed the judge to “disregard and overturn a fit custodial parent concerning visitation whenever a third party affected by the decision files a visitation petition, based solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interests”. Id.
Plaintiff intend to conduct discovery procedure in this case under Level II of New York Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4 because she seek monetary relief aggregating more than $50,000, and request that the Court enter a Discovery Control Plan and place this case on Level II because the issues in dispute are complex and the claim will be better resolved in accordance with a discovery plan specifically tailored by the Court for the disposition of this case.