Re: Amended Order Regarding The Location Of Public Sale Of An Interest In Real Property
Date: May 29, 2009
On May 4, 2009, the undersigned signed the Order Regarding the Location of Public Sale of an Interest in Real Property; however it has come to the court’s attention that there is a typographical error in that order. As a result the order is being amended to address the redundancy in the second paragraph of the order. It is therefore, on this 29th day of May, 2009, by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland,
ORDERED, that effective June 1, 2009, a public sale of an interest in real property conducted pursuant to Title 14 of the Maryland Rules, shall be conducted in front of the Main Street entrance to the Duval Wing of the Prince George’s County courthouse complex, and it is further,
ORDERED, that a public sale of an interest in real property shall occur at a point greater than twenty (20) feet to the East of the Main Street entrance to the Duval Wing of the courthouse complex, and it is further,
ORDERED, that those in charge of the sale are permitted to stand behind the rail of the courthouse porch extended on the East side of the Main Street entrance to the Duval Wing at a point greater than twenty (20) feet from the East of the door, and it is further,
ORDERED, that for the purpose of a landmark, the East side of the door is that side in which a Monument to World War One Veterans is situated, and it is further,
ORDERED, that the Sheriff for Prince George’s County is directed to enforce this Order Regarding the Location of a Sale of an Interest in Real Property, and it is further,
ORDERED, that the purpose of having the sale grater than twenty (20) feet to the East of the Main Street entrance of the Duvall Wing, is to allow egress and ingress by citizens visiting the courthouse, and it is further,
ORDERED, that if the courthouse is closed due to inclement weather or some other emergency, the sale of an interest in real property shall occur on the next day that the court sits.
Re: Changes to scheduling order for Track 1-4 Civil/Non-family cases
Date: May 27, 2009
The following is the latest version of the civil/non family scheduling order that was approved by the Judges of the Circuit Court on May 19, 2009. It is now presented for questions, comments, or criticism to the members of the bar. All statements, pro or con, regarding the scheduling order should be submitted to the Honorable Michelle D. Hotten, Civil Coordinating Judge, on or before 12 noon June 12, 2009.
SCHEDULING ORDER
This Order is your only notice of dates and required court appearances. It may not be modified except by order of court upon a showing of good cause. Stipulations between counsel are not effective to change any deadlines in this order. Failure to comply with all terms of this Order may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions.
Date:________________
This case is assigned to Civil Track (Number)
Pretrial is scheduled for (Date) at (Time) a.m.
TRACK 1 – TRACK 2 – TRACK 3 – TRACK 4
60 days prior to Pretrial, complete the following:
1. Amendments of pleadings
2. Add and serve additional parties including uninsured/underinsured insurance carriers
3. Plaintiff’s Experts Identified per Maryland Rule 2-402(g)
30 days prior to Pretrial, complete the following:
1. All discovery
2. All independent medical examinations
3. File dispositive motions
4. Defense Experts Identified per Maryland Rule 2-402(g)
5. Necessity for interpreter identified.
Prior to ADR session (if ordered):
- Complete all discovery
- Resolve any outstanding dispositive motions per Maryland Rule 2-322 or 2-501
The parties are encouraged, but not required, to submit the controversy to non-binding
arbitration which includes mediation. Disputes over track assignment, arbitration or any provision of this Order should be addressed to the Court by Motion to Amend Scheduling Order.
At least five (5) days prior to the pretrial, file a statement in full compliance with Maryland Rule 2-504.2. Parties representing themselves are required to appear at pretrial and to file a pretrial statement in compliance with Maryland Rule 2-504.2.
Parties represented by counsel, and claims representatives are not required to appear at pretrial, provided they are available by telephone, but are required to appear at ADR. Failure to comply with any of these provisions may result in a show cause hearing and the imposition of sanctions. With the consent of all parties, the pretrial may be continued for not more than Sixty (60) days after the scheduled pretrial date above. A Motion and Order is required for any request for a continuance that is more than Sixty (60) days after the scheduled pretrial, or made without the consent of all parties.
All ADR sessions must be completed prior to trial.
Any stipulations between counsel or parties to alter deadlines are not effective without court approval.
Dispositive Motion Protocol
A party filing a motion to dismiss (not related to alleged discovery violations) or motion for summary judgment will write a letter to the Judge who is assigned to that motion (which is determined by the last number of the case), notifying the Judge that the motion has been filed and indicating whether a hearing is requested. A copy of the letter should be sent to opposing counsel, but not filed with the clerk.
The party responding to the motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment should likewise send a similar letter to the assigned Judge. A copy of this letter should also be sent to opposing counsel, but not filed with the clerk.
Requests for extension of time to respond should be addressed to the assigned Judge by letter with order attached.
A hearing, where appropriate, will be set by the Judge not later than thirty (30) days after the motion and response have been filed.
The assigned Judge for dispositive motions is determined by the last digit in the case number:
1 - Smith 6 - Serrette
2 - Green 7 - Chapdelaine
3 – Martin 8 - Wallace
4 - Krauser 9 - Lamasney
5 – Missouri 0 – Northrop
Re: Sanctions for Failing to Comply with
Pre-Trial Statements Required by Rule 2-504.2
Date: November 10, 2008
On July 9, 2008, I published a memorandum
regarding the necessity to
comply with Maryland Rule 2-504(b) or be subject to sanctions by the
Court.
Effective January 1, 2009, all attorneys practicing
before the Circuit
Court who fail to comply with Rule 2-504.2 will be subject to the issuance
of a
show cause order directing that they show cause as to why they should
not be
found in contempt of court. The hearings will be scheduled before the
Civil
Coordinating Judge.
Click here for July 9, 2008 Order
Re: Foreclosure of Residential Real Estate
Property Cases
Date: July 22, 2008
On July 22, 2008 the Standing Committee on
Rules of Practice and Procedures submitted its 159th Report and recommended “that the Court of
Appeals adopt, on an emergency basis, the proposed amendments to Rules
2-122, 14-201, 14-203, 14-204, and 14-205”. The proposed amendments
are designed primarily to conform the rules relating to the foreclosure
of mortgages and Deeds of Trust against residential real property to
legislation enacted in the 2008 session of the General Assembly. Principally,
2008 Maryland Laws Chapter 2, (HB365), took effect as an emergency
Bill on April 4, 2008 (Rules Committee transmittal letter). That action
by the Court of Appeals’ Standing Committee on Rules of Practice
and Procedure convinces this court that concomitant action is required
of it regarding an overview and, where necessary, amendments to the
court’s present procedures regarding the docketing and processing
of foreclosure of residential real property cases.
As is generally known in the legal community,
and to a lesser extent in the non-legal community, Prince George’s
County has experienced, and will continue to experience, a dramatic
increase in the docketing of foreclosure of residential real property
cases. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Chief/Administrative
Judge of the Circuit Court to prepare the court for the influx of
an unusually high number of foreclosure of residential real property
cases. To that end, the court will appoint a committee that will
be charged with making a thorough review of the present procedures
employed in the docketing and processing of foreclosure of residential
real property cases. After completing the review, the committee is
authorized to make recommendations to the Chief/Administrative Judge
as to amendments to the procedures presently used by the court.
The committee is also charged with making
appropriate recommendations to the Bench, as a whole, regarding the
Bench’s obligations pursuant
to Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §2-102 (2006 rep. vol.)
and Rule 2-543. Those two (2) provisions address the Bench’s
authority to appoint a Standing Auditor and to establish procedures
that govern the performance of the Auditor, as well as the establishment
of the compensation that may be paid to the Auditor.
The Chief/Administrative Judge, for his part,
will take whatever appropriate action the committee recommends regarding
the procedural handling of all foreclosure of residential real property
cases that are docketed within the Prince George’s County Circuit Court. But the efficiency
of docketing and processing of foreclosure of real property cases within
the county may also require that the Bench review the role of the auditor
in the processing of such cases. A review of the auditing process may
result in the Bench’s decision to engage a number of auditors
with each sharing equally in the duties and compensation involved with
providing auditing services for foreclosure of real property cases.
Re: Settlement of ADR cases
Date: July 9, 2008
Please be advised that attorneys engaging
in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) before the Prince George’s County Circuit Court are required
to notify the court if an ADR cases settles prior to the date and time
it is scheduled to be heard by a retired/ADR judge. Failure to notify
the court of a case settlement may result in the issuance of a show
cause order and a subsequent hearing on the issue of reimbursement
for the retired judges’ non-productive time.
Re: Pre-trial statements pursuant to Rule 2-504.2(a)
Date: July 9,
2008
All are advised that the Circuit Court for
Prince George’s County,
through the issuance of a scheduling order pursuant to Rule 2-504,
has determined that pre-trial conferences will be scheduled for most
civil cases on the court’s docket. The scheduling of a civil
case requires, pursuant to Rule 2-504.2(a), that “each party
shall filed not later than five days before the conference a written
statement addressing the matters listed in section B of the rule.” The
court, over the years, relaxed the requirement that a pre-trial statement
be filed five days prior to the pre-trial conference, but that relaxed
practice will cease effective September 1, 2008. Effective September
1, 2008, all parties must comply with Rule 2-504.2(a) or be subject
to sanctions by the court. The mandatory filing of a pre-trial statement
will be enforced by all judges who are scheduled to hear pre-trial
conferences in the Prince George’s County Circuit Court.
