Search



Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
STRATUM
Find A Lawyer Directory
Know Your Judge

TCL > October 2006 Issue > Court Business

The Colorado Lawyer
October 2006
Vol. 35, No. 10 [Page  127]

© 2006 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved.

All material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is copyrighted by the Colorado Bar Association. Before accessing any specific article, click here for disclaimer information.

From the Courts

Court Business

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Notice Regarding Proposed Changes for 2007
To Tenth Circuit Rules
Public Comments Requested by October 20, 2006

Effective January 1, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit will issue new Rules. The proposed changes, some of which relate to changes in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, are outlined briefly below. All interested persons will find a redlined version of the rules available on the court’s website, http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov. Comments should be forwarded electronically to: Clerk@ca10.uscourts.gov; or mailed to: Office of the Clerk at the Byron White U.S. Courthouse, 1823 Stout St., Denver, CO 80257. The comment period will end October 20, 2006. The court welcomes all comments, suggestions, and questions.

By the Court:

Office of the Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

________________________

I. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1.

Effective December 1, 2006, a new Rule 32.1 will be added to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As approved, it states:

32.1. Citing Judicial Dispositions.

(a) Citation Permitted. A court may not prohibit or restrict the citation of federal judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions that have been designated as "unpublished," "not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent," or the like.

(b) Copies Required. If a party cites a federal judicial opinion, order, judgment, or other written disposition that is not available in a publicly accessible electronic database, the party must file and serve a copy of that opinion, order, judgment, or disposition with the brief or other paper in which it is cited.

"The court has changed its own local rules to conform to the new national rule. Please note, in this regard, that former local rule 36.3 has been deleted. It is replaced with proposed local rule 32.1.

II. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(a)(2)(D).

Also effective December 1, 2006, a new Federal Rule 25(a)(2)(D) will take effect. The new rule states:

(D) Electronic Filing. A court of appeals may by local rule permit or require papers to be filed, signed, or verified by electronic means that are consistent with technical standards, if any, that the Judicial Conference of the United States establishes. A local rule may require filing by electronic means only if reasonable exceptions are allowed. A paper filed by electronic means in compliance with a local rule constitutes a written paper for the purpose of applying these rules.

The court proposes revising local rule 25.5 to incorporate the Federal Rule change. The proposed local rule states:

25.5 Electronic Filing. As authorized by Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(D), the court adopts an Electronic Case Filing system. Cases may be designated for inclusion in the system by case type or by particular case or cases. All papers filed in cases included in the system must be filed electronically in compliance with procedures adopted by the court and maintained by the clerk. Consistent with Rule 25(a)(2)(D), the local procedures will include reasonable exceptions for all requirements related to electronic filing.

III. Proposed Changes to the Plan for the Appointment of Counsel In Special Civil Appeals.

The court has made several changes to the Plan For Appointment of Counsel In Special Civil Appeals. Interested parties are invited to review the redlined version of the Plan for specific changes. In particular, please note the changes to the compensation section of the Plan.

IV. Proposed Change to the Plan For Attorney Disciplinary Enforcement and 10th Circuit local rule 46.2.

The court proposes to change local rule 46.2 to require any lawyer disbarred from practice before the Tenth Circuit to pay the admission fee upon reinstatement. The court proposes adding a new section 10.7 to the Attorney Discipline Plan to incorporate this change as well.

________________________________________________________________

United States Bankruptcy Court
For the District of Colorado

In the Matter of Establishing
Deadline to Raise Employee Income Record Deficiencies Under 11 U.S.C. § 521
General Procedure Order 2006-2

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(B), the Court is authorized to enter orders modifying the filing requirements for documents listed in that subsection. The Court finds that such a modification is appropriate for the employee income record requirement, as the Clerk’s office cannot always readily and easily discern whether a filed document actually is an employee income record. The identification of employee income records is complicated due to the wide disparity in the form, type, and detail of documents submitted as evidence of payment from an employer received by the debtor(s) within 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, the substantive review of which is more properly the role of the trustee assigned to the case or the U.S. Trustee pursuant to Section 704(b)(1)(a). Therefore, it is appropriate to modify what will be accepted as payment advices or other evidence of payment received by the debtor from any employer of the debtor.

Accordingly, all parties in the case shall have until 45 days after the case is filed, or upon discovery of a fraud upon the Court related to the filing of evidence of payment by an employer, to file a motion to modify a docket entry that states an employee income record was filed or to challenge the Court’s acceptance of records in satisfaction of the employee income record requirement. The failure to timely file such a motion or to challenge the Court’s acceptance of the records shall result in the documents being deemed accepted and sufficient in satisfaction of the Section 521(a)(I)(B)(iv) requirement.

Dated: August 3, 2006

By the Court:

 

Sidney B. Brooks, Chief Judge
A. Bruce Campbell, Judge
Elizabeth E. Brown, Judge
Howard R. Tallman, Judge
Michael E. Romero, Judge

© 2006 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved. Material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and may not be reproduced in any way or medium without permission. This material also is subject to the disclaimers at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/disclaimer.cfm?year=2006.


Back