Boilerplate pleading by attorney?
Date: Sun, 06/15/2008 - 05:31
I am starting a new topic to focus on this problem. I was going over one of the opposition to my motion to vacate a judgment. I noticed about 5 times where it was worded the same way and looks like a boilerplate pleading, read on and tell me what you think.:
This Final Request for Answers clearly advised the Defendant that, under rule 33a, he must serve her answers within 40 days of notice and, should he not do so, Plaintiff may apply for final judgment.
Defendant has provided no evidence of a meritorious defense as to why he has failed to answer Plaintiff's outstanding discovery which was propounded on her over four months ago
I thought it was a typo at first but about 5 times in the same sentence they refer to me as he and her or him and her.
Not to mention they are asking me for Validation when the burden of proof is on them.
This Final Request for Answers clearly advised the Defendant that, under rule 33a, he must serve her answers within 40 days of notice and, should he not do so, Plaintiff may apply for final judgment.
Defendant has provided no evidence of a meritorious defense as to why he has failed to answer Plaintiff's outstanding discovery which was propounded on her over four months ago
I thought it was a typo at first but about 5 times in the same sentence they refer to me as he and her or him and her.
Not to mention they are asking me for Validation when the burden of proof is on them.
Sloppy, sloppy... I rather doubt that it would be sufficient
Sloppy, sloppy...
I rather doubt that it would be sufficient to hamper the opposition's case. Respond to it as though it contained no m/f errors.
