• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MiddlePart last won the day on April 18

MiddlePart had the most liked content!

About MiddlePart

  • Rank
  1. One would have to review your lease to answer these questions. The lease should define which spaces you do (and, by implication, which spaces you don't) have rights to use. The lease might also specify the rules for use of those spaces i.e., whether you are allowed to park an ATV in the yard, whether there would be additional fees for doing something like that, etc. That you have been using the yard for some purposes for a while doesn't necessarily mean that you have lease rights in it.
  2. One would have to read the lease document to be certain -- it is possible (albeit unlikely) that the landlord included a provision to that effect in the lease. Absent that, probably not.
  3. A court can enter an order of default if the defendant does not answer the complaint or fails to appear at a required court hearing. An order of default is, in effect, a determination that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff. It does not finally establish how much the defendant owes to the plaintiff, however. Once an order of default has been issued, the plaintiff can then file papers to obtain a default judgment, which will be a determination of how much the defendant owes to the plaintiff. The paperwork that accompanied the order of default should indicate the deadline. If not, consult with a lawyer in New Jersey ASAP -- the times for moving to vacate orders of default can be short. In my home state, a defendant has 30 days after entry of an order of default to file a motion to vacate it. If the order of default is not vacated, the defendant can still fight the default judgment and challenge how much is owed. But the plaintiff can use a simplified procedure for this where the amount claimed is a definite amount (or is a readily calculable amount). From your description of the history of the dispute, it seems like that route would be available to the plaintiff in your matter.
  4. But possibly also you may be referring to Rules 26(b) and 27(a)(3) and 27(a)(4): Whether Rule 26/27 or Rule 4, though, the term "exceptional circumstances" doesn't appear in the rule. Rule 27. Motions. (a) In General. ... (3) Response. (A) Time to file. Any party may file a response to a motion; Rule 27(a)(2) governs its contents. The response must be filed within 10 days after service of the motion unless the court shortens or extends the time. A motion authorized by Rules 8, 9, 18, or 41 may be granted before the 10-day period runs only if the court gives reasonable notice to the parties that it intends to act sooner. (B) Request for Affirmative Relief. A response may include a motion for affirmative relief. The time to respond to the new motion, and to reply to that response, are governed by Rule 27(a)(3)(A) and (a)(4). The title of the response must alert the court to the request for relief. (4) Reply to Response. Any reply to a response must be filed within 7 days after service of the response. A reply must not present matters that do not relate to the response. Rule 26. Computing and Extending Time ... (b) Extending Time. For good cause, the court may extend the time prescribed by these rules or by its order to perform any act, or may permit an act to be done after that time expires. But the court may not extend the time to file: (1) a notice of appeal (except as authorized in Rule 4) or a petition for permission to appeal; or (2) a notice of appeal from or a petition to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, enforce, or otherwise review an order of an administrative agency, board, commission, or officer of the United States, unless specifically authorized by law. ===============
  5. I think you might be referring to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). which states as follows: 5) Motion for Extension of Time. (A) The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if: (i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires; and (ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect or good cause. (B) A motion filed before the expiration of the time prescribed in Rule 4(a)(1) or (3) may be ex parte unless the court requires otherwise. If the motion is filed after the expiration of the prescribed time, notice must be given to the other parties in accordance with local rules. (C) No extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later
  6. In your hiring process, you'll need to make sure you comply with New Jersey's 'ban-the-box' law, which limits when and how you can ask an applicant about their criminal record. Just because you're advertising that you won't hire people convicted of a felony doesn't mean that people with that status won't apply for a job anyway. Under New Jersey law, you can do a criminal background check on your applicants, but it has to be done in the right way and at the right time in the process. Title VII doesn't expressly prohibit an employer having a blanket rule that they won't hire people who have felony convictions. In some cases (probably not your business) employers are required under particular regulations to have such a policy. That said, there are circumstances where the EEOC might consider that you have nevertheless violated Title VII by basing employment decisions on criminal records. Some useful information on that topic here: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/arrest_conviction_records.cfm.
  7. Yes. One of the leading Supreme Court decisions in this area is Harris v Forklift Systems, 510 US 17 (1993). Search online with that information to get to a copy of the decision. It will be available from multiple websites.
  8. The result in Nebraska would be the same as the result in Nevada, for the same reasons.
  9. To use one of your examples: if a state did not have (or had but repealed) a BFOQ exception, then an employer would be prohibited from discriminating under state law even if there were a perfectly legitimate BFOQ reason for the employer's action such that the employer woudn't be liable for discrimination under the federal law that did recognize a BFOQ exception. If I'm understanding your question correctly, it is not a question of allowing discrimination -- in fact, it is completely the opposite. If what you're asking is whether an exception in the federal law would apply to a state law that never had (or had repealed) a similar exception, that is a little more complicated. One would need some more specifics to reach a useful conclusion.
  10. Lawyers will not connect with potential clients on this message board. There is a 'Find a Lawyer' link on the top of the webpage that you can use -- which is one way, but not the only way, to seek out someone who can advise you on this matter. An H-2B is a type of work visa that allows foreign workers to come temporarily to the United States and perform temporary nonagricultural services or labor on a one-time, seasonal, peakload, or intermittent basis. If there's a question about or an issue with H-2B visas that your former company had obtained, then a lawyer who focuses on immigration law might be a better resource for you than a lawyer who focuses on labor & employment issues.
  11. If you're looking for a lawyer, you can click on the 'Find a Lawyer' link at the top of this webpage. That is one way (but far from the only way) to find someone who can assist you with your matter. If you're looking for general guidance from this message board, you'd need to provide some additional information. Perhaps start with the reasons you think the landlord is responsible to you for a disease you contracted. What did the landlord do (or fail to do) that caused or contributed to you becoming sick?
  12. It depends on how much you think the workplace ought to be regulated, and how much litigation to interpret and apply those regulations that you're willing to tolerate. Having a rule doesn't mean that everyone will comply or try to comply, or that everyone will correctly apply the rule in particular circumstances (even if they're trying in good faith to comply). The examples you've given are relatively straightforward and one would hope that employers faced with those circumstances would not make an issue of the affected employee not working. But it is not hard to think of other circumstances where the answer would be much less clear. Another avenue for achieving the result would be collective bargaining -- where the employees form a union and negotiate with the employer to have in place work rules that, among other things, regulate the extent to which the employer can require 'work' from an employee while the employee is using PTO.
  13. The "as is" is the source of your problem. A dealer can sell a used car "as is." When that happens, there are no warranties, and the purchaser of the vehicle becomes responsible for all repairs. The Missouri Attorney General's office has a useful publication on this topic. http://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/publications (click on 'All About Autos')
  14. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-35a 257.35a “Operate” or “operating” defined. Sec. 35a. "Operate" or "operating" means 1 or more of the following: (a) Being in actual physical control of a vehicle. This subdivision applies regardless of whether or not the person is licensed under this act as an operator or chauffeur. (b) Causing an automated motor vehicle to move under its own power in automatic mode upon a highway or street regardless of whether the person is physically present in that automated motor vehicle at that time. This subdivision applies regardless of whether the person is licensed under this act as an operator or chauffeur. As used in this subdivision, "causing an automated motor vehicle to move under its own power in automatic mode" includes engaging the automated technology of that automated motor vehicle for that purpose.
  15. Even if the bike wasn't at the time running, or never was able to run, if he was pushing the bike along a road, then he was in actual physical control of the bike and is considered, legally, to be operating it. Once he owned the bike, he needed to promptly get it on his insurance and deal with the license plate -- get a temporary tag while the permanent plate is in process. I'm guessing the plate that was on it belonged to the previous owner of the bike?