TRY ME!
30 Day Remand Extension Possibility
Summary
The 30-day deadline to remand a case from federal district court to state court in Massachusetts is generally strict, with extensions being rare and typically granted only under exceptional circumstances. To rescind a mortgage based on fraud past the statute of limitations, you must prove the fraud was not discovered until recently and acted promptly. The statute of limitations for fraud is generally 3 years from discovery. Factors for determining when fraud should have been discovered include diligence, nature of fraud, red flags, and relationships. Exceptions to the 3-year SOL include the discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, and equitable tolling. The federal SOL for fraud is usually 5 years. Civil fraud involves financial loss, while criminal fraud involves deceit for gain. RICO targets organized crime. The same claim refers to similar facts or issues in previous dismissals. FRCP Rule 1447(c) allows a 30-day remand period.Full Conversation
can you rescind the mortgage past * or 4 year SOL based on fraud?
To rescind a mortgage based on fraud past the typical statute of limitations (SOL) in Massachusetts, you must prove the fraud was not discovered until recently, and you acted promptly upon discovery. Generally, the statute of limitations for fraud is 3 years from the date you discovered, or should have discovered, the fraud.
Would you like to be connected to a local lawyer who can better assist you with this matter?
Would you like to be connected to a local lawyer who can better assist you with this matter?
what factors go into the determination/consideration that fraud "should have been discovered"?
In Massachusetts, determining when fraud "should have been discovered" typically involves considering the following factors:
- The plaintiff's diligence in investigating potential fraud.
- The nature and extent of the fraudulent conduct.
- Whether there were any red flags or suspicious activities that should have alerted the plaintiff.
- The relationship between the parties involved.
Would you like to discuss your case with a local lawyer who can provide more detailed advice?
- The plaintiff's diligence in investigating potential fraud.
- The nature and extent of the fraudulent conduct.
- Whether there were any red flags or suspicious activities that should have alerted the plaintiff.
- The relationship between the parties involved.
Would you like to discuss your case with a local lawyer who can provide more detailed advice?
Are there any exceptions to the * y SOL for fraud?
Case Rating: *
In Massachusetts, there are some exceptions to the *-year statute of limitations (SOL) for fraud:
- Discovery Rule: The *-year period starts when the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered.
- Fraudulent Concealment: If the defendant actively concealed the fraud, the SOL may be extended.
- Equitable Tolling: In rare cases, courts may extend the SOL for fairness.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these exceptions?
In Massachusetts, there are some exceptions to the *-year statute of limitations (SOL) for fraud:
- Discovery Rule: The *-year period starts when the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered.
- Fraudulent Concealment: If the defendant actively concealed the fraud, the SOL may be extended.
- Equitable Tolling: In rare cases, courts may extend the SOL for fairness.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these exceptions?
Is Federal SOL for fraud different/
Case Rating: *
The federal statute of limitations (SOL) for fraud under civil law is generally different from state laws. Here's a brief overview:
- Federal SOL: Usually 5 years from the date of the fraudulent act.
- Federal Tolling Provisions: May extend this period under certain circumstances, such as ongoing concealment.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these federal provisions?
The federal statute of limitations (SOL) for fraud under civil law is generally different from state laws. Here's a brief overview:
- Federal SOL: Usually 5 years from the date of the fraudulent act.
- Federal Tolling Provisions: May extend this period under certain circumstances, such as ongoing concealment.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these federal provisions?
What is the difference between civil and criminal fraud?
Case Rating: *
Sure, let me explain the difference:
- Civil Fraud: Involves a person lying or hiding information to cause financial loss to another party. The victim sues for damages.
- Criminal Fraud: Involves deceit with intent to gain something of value, leading to criminal charges. The state prosecutes the offender.
Would you like more detailed information on any specific aspect of these fraud types?
Sure, let me explain the difference:
- Civil Fraud: Involves a person lying or hiding information to cause financial loss to another party. The victim sues for damages.
- Criminal Fraud: Involves deceit with intent to gain something of value, leading to criminal charges. The state prosecutes the offender.
Would you like more detailed information on any specific aspect of these fraud types?
What is RICO?
Case Rating: *
RICO stands for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It is a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. Here are some key points:
- It targets patterns of racketeering activity.
- Allows extended criminal penalties and civil cause of action.
- Applies to various criminal enterprises.
Would you like to know more about how RICO could be relevant to your situation?
RICO stands for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It is a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. Here are some key points:
- It targets patterns of racketeering activity.
- Allows extended criminal penalties and civil cause of action.
- Applies to various criminal enterprises.
Would you like to know more about how RICO could be relevant to your situation?
MRCP * (a) states; Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of the United States or of this or any other state an action based on or including the same claim. How should I interpret "the same claim"? The instant case to which the dismissal applies? or any dismissal in separate court cases, e.g. dimsissal of action related to a different real estate property, not part of current action?
Case Rating: *
"The same claim" refers to the same underlying facts or issues being litigated, not just the specific case. It means if you previously dismissed a case with similar facts or issues in any court, it might be considered an adjudication on the merits.
Do you need more information on how this could impact your current case?
"The same claim" refers to the same underlying facts or issues being litigated, not just the specific case. It means if you previously dismissed a case with similar facts or issues in any court, it might be considered an adjudication on the merits.
Do you need more information on how this could impact your current case?
Which frcp allows a 30 day remand to the state court
Case Rating: *
The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that allows a *-day period to file a motion to remand a case to the state court is Rule *(c).
Would you like to know more about the remand process or any other specific details?
The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that allows a *-day period to file a motion to remand a case to the state court is Rule *(c).
Would you like to know more about the remand process or any other specific details?
Re MRCP 41a voluntary dismissal: what does it mean "dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits" if the court has not adjudicated the issues. e.g. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, I did not file am objection and the court has not ruled on the motion
Case Rating: *
In the context of MRCP *(a), "dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits" means that the voluntary dismissal will be considered as a final decision on the case’s issues, preventing the plaintiff from bringing the same claim against the same defendant again. This applies if the plaintiff has previously dismissed a similar claim.
Would you like more information on how this could impact your particular case?
In the context of MRCP *(a), "dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits" means that the voluntary dismissal will be considered as a final decision on the case’s issues, preventing the plaintiff from bringing the same claim against the same defendant again. This applies if the plaintiff has previously dismissed a similar claim.
Would you like more information on how this could impact your particular case?
Does this apply if the plaintiff has previously dismissed a similar claim against the same defendant?
Case Rating: *
Yes, in Massachusetts, under MRCP *(a), if a plaintiff has previously dismissed a similar claim against the same defendant, it will operate as an adjudication upon the merits. This means the plaintiff cannot bring the same claim against the same defendant again.
Do you need any more specific details or have other questions about your case?
Yes, in Massachusetts, under MRCP *(a), if a plaintiff has previously dismissed a similar claim against the same defendant, it will operate as an adjudication upon the merits. This means the plaintiff cannot bring the same claim against the same defendant again.
Do you need any more specific details or have other questions about your case?
What if the dismissal was against a different defendant in case related to a different real estate property?
Case Rating: *
In Massachusetts, under MRCP *(a), if the dismissal was against a different defendant in a case related to a different real estate property, it would generally not be considered the same claim. The "same claim" usually refers to the same underlying facts or issues involving the same parties.
Would you like more detailed information on how this might impact your current case?
In Massachusetts, under MRCP *(a), if the dismissal was against a different defendant in a case related to a different real estate property, it would generally not be considered the same claim. The "same claim" usually refers to the same underlying facts or issues involving the same parties.
Would you like more detailed information on how this might impact your current case?
Does MRCP *(a) differ from FRCP *(a) in that regard?
Case Rating: *
MRCP *(a) and FRCP *(a) are generally similar but may have some differences in application. Both rules discuss voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, and the consequences of such dismissals. Here are some specific points:
- Both rules allow voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
- Both rules state that unless otherwise specified, the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff can refile the case.
- Both rules provide that if the plaintiff has previously dismissed any federal or state court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits.
Would you like more detailed information on how these rules might impact your specific situation?
MRCP *(a) and FRCP *(a) are generally similar but may have some differences in application. Both rules discuss voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, and the consequences of such dismissals. Here are some specific points:
- Both rules allow voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
- Both rules state that unless otherwise specified, the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff can refile the case.
- Both rules provide that if the plaintiff has previously dismissed any federal or state court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits.
Would you like more detailed information on how these rules might impact your specific situation?
What Massachusetts statute or procedural rule defines "the same claim"?
Case Rating: *
In Massachusetts, the concept of "the same claim" isn't defined by a single statute or procedural rule. Instead, it’s interpreted through case law and principles from various rules like MRCP *(a). Generally, it refers to claims involving the same underlying facts or issues.
Is there a specific context or situation you need help with regarding "the same claim"?
In Massachusetts, the concept of "the same claim" isn't defined by a single statute or procedural rule. Instead, it’s interpreted through case law and principles from various rules like MRCP *(a). Generally, it refers to claims involving the same underlying facts or issues.
Is there a specific context or situation you need help with regarding "the same claim"?
It would be more clear in rule 41a specified "the same claim involving the same parties"?
Case Rating: *
In Massachusetts, MRCP *(a) requires the "same claim" to involve the same underlying facts or issues and the same parties. This interpretation helps prevent plaintiffs from re-litigating the same disputes against the same defendants.
Do you have a specific scenario where you're unsure if it involves the same claim or parties?
In Massachusetts, MRCP *(a) requires the "same claim" to involve the same underlying facts or issues and the same parties. This interpretation helps prevent plaintiffs from re-litigating the same disputes against the same defendants.
Do you have a specific scenario where you're unsure if it involves the same claim or parties?
yes. in * i voluntarily dismissed the case in Mass Fed District Ct under FRCP *(a)* which involved claim of stopping foreclosure and quieting title related to my rental property against Bank *. Now I brought action against Bank * stopping foreclosure and quieting title, however related to a different property, my residence. If I dismiss this action would that be considered as the same claim under FRCP *(a)*(B)/
Case Rating: *
Your current action against Bank * for a different property would likely not be considered the "same claim" under FRCP *(a)(*)(B) because it involves a different property and a different defendant. However, it's always good to consult a lawyer for specific advice.
Would you like more detailed information on this topic?
Your current action against Bank * for a different property would likely not be considered the "same claim" under FRCP *(a)(*)(B) because it involves a different property and a different defendant. However, it's always good to consult a lawyer for specific advice.
Would you like more detailed information on this topic?
FRCP *(a)*(B) states: "Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits." However since it does not mention "the same parties" it is a bit ambiguous.
Case Rating: *
It seems like you're dealing with a nuanced legal issue. Here are some key points to consider:
- "The same claim": Generally refers to the same underlying facts or legal issue.
- Different defendants and properties: Might not be considered the same claim.
Would you like to discuss this further with a local lawyer who can provide more specific guidance?
It seems like you're dealing with a nuanced legal issue. Here are some key points to consider:
- "The same claim": Generally refers to the same underlying facts or legal issue.
- Different defendants and properties: Might not be considered the same claim.
Would you like to discuss this further with a local lawyer who can provide more specific guidance?
Start a new chat