PORTFOLIO - spauldinginvestigations.com€¦ · PORTFOLIO The Spaulding Paralegal Firm, ... Sample...

PORTFOLIO

The Spaulding Paralegal Firm, LLC. Jamie M. Spaulding, Paralegal & Investigator

Email: [email protected]: http://spauldingparalegal.com

Phone: (410) 570-0626

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 1

Resume 2-5

Sample Research Memo 6-7

Sample Jurisdiction Memo 8

Sample EEOC Complaint 9-10

Sample Evidence Chart 11

Sample Complaint 12-14

Sample Stipulation 15

Sample Motion to Amend the Complaint 16-17

Sample Discovery Plan 18

Sample Notice of Deposition and Subpoena 19-20

Sample Interrogatories 21-23

Sample Stipulation for Medical Exam 24

Sample Request for Production of Documents 25-26

Sample Answers for Admission 27-28

Sample Settlement Letter 29

Sample Memorandum of Law 30-35

Sample Fee Sheet 36

Sample Trial Notebook 37

Sample Notice of Appeal 38

Relevant Training Certificate[s] 39

2

Jamie M. SpauldingThe Spaulding Paralegal Firm, LLC

Email: [email protected]: http://spauldingparalegal.com

Phone: (410) 570-0626

OBJECTIVE

To find gainful employment as a Paralegal or Investigator at a firm, governmental agency, state or federal court system, or NGO.

QUALIFICATIONS

I am a highly motived entrepreneur with a strong professional and academic background in the law, investigations and government. Prior to beginning my academic career, I served five (5) years active duty in the U.S. Navy as a Military Police Officer. I am a graduate of the U.S. Navy Law Enforcement Academy and NCIS Interview and Interrogation School. After my Honorable Discharge in 2008, I enrolled in full time school at the College of Southern Maryland earning an A.A. in General Studies. After graduating from CSM, I completed a B.S. in Political Science at Towson University and a Certificate in Paralegal Studies from Prince Georges Community College. I am currently the Paralegal, Investigator, and Owner of The Spaulding Paralegal Firm, LLC.

EDUCATION

2014 CertificateParalegal StudiesPrince Georges Community CollegeCumulative GPA 3.90

2013 Bachelor of SciencePolitical ScienceTowson UniversityCumulative GPA 3.39

2011 Associates of ArtsGeneral StudiesCollege of Southern MarylandCumulative GPA 3.46

3

CREDENTIALS & TRAINING

2005 DiplomaLaw Enforcement/Force ProtectionU.S. Navy Law Enforcement Academy

2005 CertificateSecurity First Responder (SFR)Naval Criminal Investigative Service

2004 CertificateInterview & Interrogation School.Naval Criminal Investigative Service

2004 CertificateArmed Sentry CourseU.S. Navy

2003 DiplomaBasic Military TrainingRTC Great Lakes, ILU.S. Navy

RELEVANT COURSE WORK

Introduction to Law Legal Research Legal Writing Civil Litigation Criminal Law Contract Law Family Law Law and Society Criminal Procedure Criminal Evidence Criminal Behavior Physical Security Report Writing

Criminal Investigation The U.S. Supreme Court The U.S. Congress The U.S. Presidency American National Government U.S. Foreign-Domestic Policy American Political Parties Homeland Security Policy Terrorism & Counterterrorism

4

RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT

2014-Present Paralegal and Investigator, The Spaulding Paralegal Firm, LLCAs a Paralegal/Investigator, I provide my cliental with substantive legal services on a contractual basis. These services include; legal research, legal writing, case cite checking, document drafting, and interviews/investigations. I am extremely proficient with writing legal memorandum, case briefs, complaints, answers, interrogatories and a variety of other high quality paralegal/investigative work-products. I utilize the IRAC method in all my work and I can conduct research using both Westlaw and LexisNexis online research databases as well as any state law library.

2014-Present Notary Public, State of MarylandMy duties as a Notary Public include acting as a witness; receiving the acknowledgment of certain written instruments; administering oaths according to law in certain civil matters; making protests and declarations in certain commercial transactions; completing a certificate under the notary's official seal that the notary has performed any of these duties; and certifying a copy of a record in his or her fair register of official acts.

2003.2008 Military Police Officer (MA3/E4), U.S. Navy As an MP in the navy, I became an expert at applying U.S. and military law to various situations. I became extremely proficient at reading people their rights, interviewing and interrogating both witnesses and suspects, writing police reports, maintaining desk journals and logs, administering and reviewing voluntary statements, and conducting investigations. In my five years of service, I held various positions; squad leader, armory supervisor, asst. command investigator,asst. field training officer, patrol officer, dispatcher, armed escort, and bailiff. With each position held, I gained valuable experience with the UCMJ, criminal justice, NJP proceedings, security force operations, investigations and corrections.

OTHER EMPLOYMENT

2013-2014 Mortgage Loan Processor, New Day Financial

2012-2013 Department Manager, Target

2009-2012 Sales Associate, Office Depot

5

PROFESSIONAL & ACADEMIC ACHIEVMENTS

U.S. Navy Letter of Commendation (2) U.S. Navy Good Conduct Medal U.S. Navy Global War on Terrorism Service Medal U.S. Navy National Defense Service Medal U.S. Navy Overseas Service Ribbon U.S. Navy Battle “E” Ribbon U.S. Navy Expert Rifle Shot Medal U.S. Navy Expert Pistol Shot Medal U.S. Navy Honorable Discharge (2008) Towson University Dean’s List Target Performer of the Month Award Office Depot Employee of the Month Award (4) Member of Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES

2010 Teaching Assistant, The College of Southern Maryland.“F2F: Communicating with Parents & Peers,” Destination College Workshop, fifth grade visits to College of Southern Maryland, Prince Frederick, MD.

PUBLICATIONS

Spaulding, Jamie M. “The US-Russian Role in Nuclear Nonproliferation”, Towson Journal ofInternational Affairs. Fall 2014 Issue.

MEMBERSHIPS

American Bar AssociationAmerican Association of NotariesMaryland Association of ParalegalsNational Federation of Paralegal AssociationsMember of Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society

The Academy of Political Science

6

RESEARCH MEMORANDUM

TO: Judge MasonFROM: Jamie Spaulding, ParalegalDATE: 4/10/2014

FACTS

Mrs. Bennett accuses her former employer, Rikards-Hayley, of sexual discrimination. Mrs. Bennett believes that she was denied a promotion and eventually lost her position within this company, because of her gender. She claims to have suffered emotional distress and believes she is entitled to compensation for her damages.

RELEVANT LAW[S]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—makes it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963—makes it illegal to pay employees based on their sex. Sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991—amends Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 to permit compensatory and punitive damage awards to victims of sexual discrimination.

QUESTION[S]

(1) What constitutes sexual discrimination?

(2) What are the procedures for filing a claim with the EEOC?

(3) What are the requirements for filing a lawsuit?

ANSWER[S]

(1) The EEOC defines sexual discrimination as, “treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex. Sex discrimination also can involve treating someone less favorably because of his or her connection with an organization or group that is generally associated with people of a certain sex.” (Web, 2014) Based on this definition, it could be argued, that Mrs. Bennett’s claim falls under this category of sexual discrimination.

(2) According to the EEOC, Mrs. Bennett can file a “Charge of Discrimination” against her employer. This must be done before she can file a job discrimination law suit. After filing the “Charge of Discrimination”, Mrs. Bennett may be asked to participate in mediation with her former employee in the hopes of coming to an agreement outside of going to trial. If no agreement can be made during mediation, a subsequent investigation will be initiated by the EEOC. Mrs. Bennett can file the “Charge of Discrimination” using one of three methods: phone, mail or in person. The EEOC has 53 field offices where Mrs.

7

Bennett can file her “Charge of Discrimination” against her former employee. Typically, she would select the one closest and most convenient to her. If the EEOC finds that there has been no violation of the law on the part of the accused, then the plaintiff, Mrs. Bennett, will be given what’s called a “Notice of Right to Sue”, which allows her to file a job discrimination lawsuit. If the EEOC finds that there is a violation of the law, they will attempt to work out a voluntary settlement with the employer. If they cannot agree upon a voluntary settlement, then the EEOC will decide whether to take them to court.

(3) The requirements that Alice Bennett must meet are outlined in Employment Discrimination Title 42 of the US Code. 2000e-5: Enforcement Provisions. These provisions state that, the petition must be filed by Mrs. Bennett within 180 after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. The time can be extended to 300 days if there is a local agency that the claim has been already filed with. Additionally, the party being charged must be served within 10 days thereafter.

8

JURISDICTION MEMORANDUM

Attn: Supervising Attorney Case: Bennett v. Rikards-HayleyRe: JurisdictionJanuary 29, 2014

ISSUE

Which court system, federal or state, has personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction in the Bennett v. Rikards-Hayley case?

QUESTION[S]

(I.) If the action is based on New York state law, does the New York trial court have both subject and personal jurisdiction over the defendant?

(II.) If the action is filed in a New York state court, locate the address for the court or courts that would have venue.

(III.) If the action is based on federal law (Title VII - 42 U.S.C. sec.2000e), which courts would have subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and proper venue?

(IV.) If the action is filed in federal court under 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e, can the federal court also hear a claim for infliction of emotional distress (based entirely on state law) suffered by Bennett as a result of the discrimination?

ANSWER[S]

(I.) Yes, if the action is based on New York state law, the New York Trial Court has both subject and personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

(II.) The address is: New York County Courthouse. 60 Centre Street. New York, NY 10007.

(III.) The US District Court, Southern District of New York.

(IV.) Yes. If the action is filed in federal court under 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e, the federal court canalso hear a claim for infliction of emotional distress.

CONCLUSION

Both state and federal courts have personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

9

CHARGE OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNew York District Office

33 Whitehall Street, 5th FloorNew York, NY 10004

ATTN: Kevin J. Berry

Dear Mr. Berry,

My name is Jamie Spaulding with PGCC Law Firm. I am writing to you in regards to our client, Mrs. Alice Bennett. Our client believes that she was a victim of sexual discrimination from her former employer, Rickards-Hayley. Below are the facts of the case:

Mrs. Bennett’s first position with Rickards-Hayley was in training and development. While there, she received superior evaluations from her supervisors. Shortly after, she was promoted to the acting manager of the department and received superior performance evaluations in that position as well. When the acting manager position that she was filling became open as a permanent one, Mrs. Bennett applied. Unfortunately, Mrs. Bennett was not selected for the position. Her supervisor, Darren Blackwood, gave her the following reasons: She did not fit the image they were looking for, she needed to lose weight, she needed to change her attitude towards male employees, she was too assertive and she needed to show more deference. Because of these reasons, Rickards-Hayley decided to hire Martina Yardly for the management position instead. Mrs. Bennett stated that after Mrs. Yardly was hired, her life in the work place was made miserable. Mrs. Yardly constantly criticized Mrs. Bennett’s work and even made comments about her appearance and weight. Mrs. Bennett was fired two months ago. In addition to the mistreatment of Mrs. Bennett while she was employed at Rickards-Hayley, Mrs. Bennett’s severance package was only 6 month’s salary which is only half of what males commonly receive when terminated. As a result of these events, Mrs. Bennett has suffered physically and emotionally. She is currently seeing a doctor due to the side effects caused by the stress involved in this situation. So far, her medical bills have totaled $2,500.

We believe, based on these facts, that Mrs. Bennett has suffered from employment discrimination based on her sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. We would ask that you accept this letter as an official request to file a claim of employment discrimination. Below is the contact information for Mrs. Bennett as well as Rickards-Hayley:

Mrs. Bennett: 2367 Meadow Ln., New York, NY. (212) 555-1212.

Rickards-Hayley: 121 Centre St., New York, NY. (212) 333-2736.

Thank you for taking the time to investigate this matter. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

10

Sincerely,

Jamie M. SpauldingJamie M. Spaulding

Paralegal & Investigator

11

EVIDENCE CHART

I. Performance evaluations of the plaintiff and the defendant Martina Yardley: We think that obtaining these reports could be useful because if they reflect the “superior performance” that the plaintiff claims, it will be difficult for Rickards-Hayley to argue that Mrs. Bennett was not up to company standards.

II. Company email/communications records: We think that any emails or other documented communications between Mrs. Bennett and her superiors may be useful if they indicate any discrimination.

III. Medical record/bills of plaintiff: The medical record showing Mrs. Bennett’s treatment and any documented illness and expenses as a result of losing her job will help to show the damages she suffered.

IV. Job search history of plaintiff: We believe that having Mrs. Bennett’s job search history will show the trouble that she has had finding employment since the discrimination took place.

V. Company reports on severance package history: We believe that getting the company’s records of severance package offers to previous employees will also show that Mrs. Bennett was discriminated on because of her sex.

VI. Company hiring interview reports: We think that there may be some value in reviewing the applications and interview files from all the applicants that applied for the management position in question.

VII. Qualifications of the Marina Yardly: We think that Mrs. Yardly’s qualifications should be evaluated next to Mrs. Bennett’s to see if she was in fact more qualified.

VIII. Testimonies/statements: Any information we can obtain from people that may have witnessed any discriminating statements to Mrs. Bennett while at work will certainly be useful.

IX. Personal Data: A collection of contact and personal information of Alice Bennett, Martina Yardley, Darren Blackwood, and any witnesses (once identified) that Ms. Bennett supervised during her employment as acting manager of the training and development department to ensure the location of all individuals involved for further questioning if needed.

X. Court Records: Review the PACER website to research possible past cases of discrimination involving Rikards – Hayley and their former employees.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALICE BENNETT,

Plaintiff Civil Action, No. ____________

v. COMPLAINT FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

RIKARDS-HAYLEY

Defendant

_____________________________________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Employment Discrimination

1. Alice Bennett, is a resident of New York, New York., residing at 2367 Meadow Lane.

2. Rickards-Hayley, is a corporation located at 121 Centre Street. New York, NY.

3. The acts took place in New York, NY.

4. On 2/01/2014, the plaintiff filed a claim with the EEOC alleging that the defendant had committed an unlawful employment practice against plaintiff in violation of Title VII of the CivilRights Act.

5. On 2/02/2014, the EEOC issued the plaintiff a right to sue letter informing the plaintiff that she had the right to sue within the next 12 months.

6. Alice Bennett’s first position with Rickards-Hayley was in training and development. Whilethere, she received superior evaluations from her supervisors. Shortly after, she was promoted to the acting manager of the department and received superior performance evaluations in that position as well. When the acting manager position that she was filling became open as a permanent one, Alice Bennett applied.

7. Alice Bennett was not selected for the position. Her supervisor, Darren Blackwood, gave her the following reasons: She did not fit the image they were looking for, she needed to lose weight, she needed to change her attitude towards male employees, she was too assertive and she needed to show more deference.

8. Rickards-Hayley decided to hire Martina Yardly for the management position instead.

13

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Wrongful Termination

9. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 1-7 of the first Cause of Action, and by such reference repleads and incorporates them as though fully set fourth here.

10. Alice Bennett was fired on 01/2013. In addition to the mistreatment of Mrs. Bennett while she was employed at Rickards-Hayley, Mrs. Bennett’s severance package was only 6 month’s salary which is only half of what males commonly receive when terminated.

11. The above described actions of the defendant constitute a wrongful discharge entitling plaintiff to general, compensatory, and punitive damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

12. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 1-8 of the first Cause of Action, and 9-12 of the second and by such reference repleads and incorporates them as though fully set fourth here.

13. Alice Bennett stated that after Martina Yardly was hired, her life in the work place was made miserable. Martina Yardly constantly criticized Alice Bennett’s work and even made comments about her appearance and weight.

14. As a result of these events, Alice Bennett has suffered physically and emotionally. She is currently seeing a doctor due to the side effects caused by the stress involved in this situation. So far, her medical bills have totaled $2,500.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment as follows:

On First, Second and Third Causes of Action

1. Actual damages of $250,000.00, or to be established at trial.

2. General and compensatory damages of $75,000.00

3. Punitive damages of $125,000.00

On all Causes of Action

1. Costs of suit

2. Reasonable attorney’s fees

3. Such other and further relief that the court deems equitable. Dated: 2/19/2014.

14

__________________Attorney for Plaintiff

PGCC Law FirmLargo, MD

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing Complaint has been furnished to council of record on this ____day of _________, ________.

_____________________________

15



ALICE BENNETT,


v. STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

RIKARDS-HAYLEY

Defendant

_____________________________________

IT IS STIPULATED by plaintiffs and defendant, RIKARDS-HAYLEY, through their respective council, that the time within which defendant, RIKARDS-HAYLEY, may have to respond to the complaint shall be, subject to approval by the court, extended to and including 06/01/2014 or such other date as the court may order.

Dated: 02/19/2014 ______________________________

AttorneyPGCC Law Firm______________________________

AttorneyDefendant

ORDER

Pursuant to the above stipulation filed herein, and good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/19/2014 ______________________________

Judge, District Court

16



ALICE BENNETT,


v. NOTICE OF MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

RIKARDS-HAYLEY,

Defendant

_____________________________________

To: Rickards-Hayley, Attorney for Defendant,

Please take this as notice that our client, Alice Bennett, will bring the above notice to the United States District Court Southern District of New York, 9 o’clock a.m. on the day 5th day of May, 2014 or as soon as council can be heard, in accordance with Rule 7 and 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

______________________________Attorney for PlaintiffPGCC Law FirmLargo, MD

17



ALICE BENNETT,


v. NOTICE OF ALICE BENNETT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND

RIKARDS-HAYLEY,

Defendant

_____________________________________

I, Alice Bennett, being first duly sworn, depose and say:

1. I am the former employee of Rickards-Hayley, the plaintiff in this action, and I am acquainted with the facts in this case, and have personal knowledge of the matter set forth in this affidavit.

2. I make this affidavit in support of the Motion to Amend this action.

3. Based on the interviews with several witnesses and after reviewing various documents, my attorneys have concluded that a cause of action for a breach of contract exists in addition to my original complaint. I agree with this conclusion.

______________________________

Alice BennettPlaintiff

Subscribed and sworn to before me on 2/26/2014.

18

DISCOVERY PLAN OF ACTION

To: Supervising AttorneyDate: 3/5/2014Re: Bennett v. Rikard’s-Hayley

Person of Interest Subject Topic Discovery Method

Alice Bennett: Emotional Distress. Deposition.

Rickards-Hayley: Employment discrimination, unequal severance package, inappropriate comments made by supervisors.

Deposition; Interrogatories; Request for the production of documents, ESI, tangible things, or entry upon land for inspection and other purposes.

Robert Bennett: Mrs. Bennett’s emotional distress since being fired.

Interrogatory.

Darren Blackwood: Sexually discriminatory comments. Deposition.

Martina Yardley: Harassment, sexually discriminatory comments.

Deposition.

Mrs. Bennett’s Physician: Emotional distress of Mrs. Bennett. Request for the production of documents, ESI, tangible things, or entry upon land for inspection and other purposes.

EEOC: Initial claim of employment discrimination.

Request for the production of documents, ESI, tangible things, or entry upon land for inspection and other purposes.

Respectfully submitted,Jamie SpauldingParalegal & Investigator



19

ALICE BENNETT,


v. NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE ORAL DEPOSITION

RIKARDS-HAYLEY

Defendant

_____________________________________

To: Attorney for Defendant,

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; PGCC Law Firm will take the oral deposition of Rickards-Hayley before a notary public on March 15, 2014, at 3p.m. and thereafter from day to day until completed, at Prince Georges Community College.

Testimony will be recorded with video.Respectfully,

PGCC LawyerAttorney for Plaintiff


I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing Notice of Intent to Take Oral Deposition has been furnished to council of record on this 12th day of March.

_____________________________



20

ALICE BENNETT,


v. SUPEONA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY

RIKARDS-HAYLEY

Defendant

_____________________________________

To: Martha Yee,

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case.

PLACE: PGCC Law FirmDATE: March 20, 2014TIME: 1400

PGCC Lawyer _________________

ISSUING OFFICER’S SIGNATURE AND TITLE DATE

Attorney, PGCC Law Firm. Bladen Hall. Largo, Maryland. (866) 111-2222

ISSUING OFFICER’S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER



21

ALICE BENNETT,


v. REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES

RIKARDS-HAYLEY

Defendant

_____________________________________

TO: RIKARDS-HAYLEY, DefendantFROM: ALICE BENNETT, Plaintiff

Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you are to answer the interrogatories hereinafter set forth, separately, fully, in writing, and under oath. You should deliver a true copy of your answer to the undersigned attorney within 30 days after the date of service of these interrogatories.

DEFINITIONS

1. To “identify” a document or state the “identity of” a document shall mean to state with respect thereto:

a. The identity of the person who prepared it;b. The identity of the person who signed it or over whose signature it was or is issued;c. The identity of each person to whom it was addressed or distributed;d. The nature and substance of the document with sufficient particularity to enable it to be

identified.2. To “identify” or to state the “identity of” a person shall mean with respect thereto:a. The persons full name;b. The persons title and business or professional affiliation; andc. The persons present title and business or professional and residence addresses.

INSTRUCTIONS

A. You are required by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to:

1. Answer fully and factually each of the interrogatories hereinafter set out.2. Furnish all information called for by said interrogatory.3. Sign your response.4. Swear to your response.5. Serve same upon the undersigned attorney within thirty (30) days after the date of

service of these interrogatories. You are further instructed:B. Every interrogatory herein shall be deemed a continuing interrogatory, and you are to supplement your answers promptly if and when you obtain relevant information in addition to, or in any way inconsistent with, your initial answer to any interrogatory.

22

C. If you object to, or otherwise decline to answer, any portion of an interrogatory, provide all information called for in that portion of the interrogatory to which you do not object or which you do not decline to answer. If you object to an interrogatory on the grounds that to provide an answer would constitute an undue burden, provide such requested information as can be supplied without undertaking an undue burden. For those portions of any interrogatory to which you object or otherwise decline to answer, state the reason for such objection or declination.

D. The applicable period of time, unless otherwise provided, shall be from to the date of answering these interrogatories.

E. If any answer is refused in whole or in part, on the basis of a claim of privilege or exemption, state the following:

1. The nature of the privilege or exemption claimed;2. The general nature of the matter withheld (e.g., substance of conversation of the

withheld information, name of originator);3. Name(s) of person(s) to whom the information has been imparted; and4. The extent, if any, to which the information will be provided subject to the

privilege or exemption.

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State your full name, street address of your residence, date of birth, marital status, social security number and educational background including each diploma, certificate or other degree.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each person, other than a person intended to be called as an expert witness at trial, having discoverable information that tends to support a position that you have taken or intend to take in this action, including any claim for damages, and state the subject matter of the information possessed by that person.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial, state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, state the substance of the findings and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, and, with respect to an expert whose findings and opinions were acquired in anticipation of litigation or for trial, summarize the qualifications of the expert, state the terms of the expert's compensation, and attach to your answers any available list of publications written by the expert and any written report made by the expert concerning the expert's findings and opinions.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State the names and addresses of all eyewitnesses to all or part of each and every allegation of fact as set forth in the Counter-Complaint, indicating with respect to each such eyewitness to which allegation of fact the witnesses’ personal knowledge pertains and the exact location of the witness at the time the fact occurred.

23

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: If you intend to rely upon any documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things to support a position that you have taken or intend to take in the action, including any claim for damages, provide a brief description, by category and location, of all such documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, and identify all persons having possession, custody, or control of them.

Submitted,

PGCC Lawyer Attorney for Plaintiff

PGCC Law FirmBladen Hall. Largo, MD

(866)111-2222


I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing First Set of Interrogatories has been furnished to counsel of record on this the twelve day of March, 2014.

______________________________


24


ALICE BENNETT,


v. STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION

RIKARDS-HAYLEY

Defendant

_____________________________________

IT IS STIPULATED by plaintiffs and defendant, that Mrs. Alice Bennett will be given a mental examination by Dr. Peter Ebert, a board certified psychiatrist on the 25th day of April, 2014.

Dated: 03/19/2014 ______________________________

Attorney for Plaintiff

______________________________

Attorney for Defendant

ORDER

Pursuant to the above stipulation filed herein, and good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/19/2014 ______________________________

Judge, District Court


25


ALICE BENNETT,


v. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

RIKARDS-HAYLEY

Defendant

_____________________________________

FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT

TO: Attorney of Record for Defendant, Rikards-Hayley.

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alice Bennett, in the above cause, requests that Rikards-Hayley, defendant in the above cause, produce for inspection and copying by April, within thirty days of service hereof or at other times as may be agreed upon counsel for the parties, originals or legible copies of the documents requested herein. You are also requested to serve upon plaintiff within thirty (30) days after service of this request a written response in accordance with Rule 34 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. Unless specified otherwise, documents requested herein include all those which were dated, written, rewritten, modified, sent, of received from

2. The following definitions apply to this request:

a. The term agreement means any document or oral statements that constitute or purport to be in whole or in part of all changes, amendments, covenants, alterations, modifications, interpretations, and drafts thereof, whether or not carried out.

b. The term computer means any electronic devices, including but not limited to antitheft systems and databases, audio networks and digital cameras.

c. The term document means any written, recorded, taped, or word processed document and shall include all drafts, originals, and copies.

26

d. The term electronically stored information means any animation, anti-theft system and database records, archives, voicemails, videotapes, fax machine, e-mail, deleted data, financial data, PDA’s and spreadsheets.

3. Produce each and every document in its original file folder, cover, envelope, or jacket the person or corporate office, department subdivision, by which the file was maintained.

4. Should you be unable to produce any of the documents or ESI called for in this request, explain why.

5. Any questions that may arise as to this request for documents may be directed by the counsel for the defendant to the undersigned representative of the plaintiff before the dates set for the production of the documents that are the subject matter of this request.

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

1. All agreements, documents, electronically stored information, and reports that relate to discrimination claims from prior employees.

2. All agreements, documents, electronically stored information, and reports that relate to plaintiff’s evaluations and human resources files.

3. All agreements, documents, electronically stored information, and reports that relate to any and all communication between Alice Bennett and Rikards-Hayley.

5. All agreements, documents, electronically stored information, and reports that relate to Rikards-Hayley pension policy.

6. All agreements, documents, electronically stored information, and reports that relate to job training and qualifications for managerial positions from Rikards-Hayley.

Submitted,_____________________

Attorney for PlaintiffPGCC Law Firm

Largo, MD


I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed by first class mail to Rickards-Hayley, New York, New York, on this 26th day of March 2014.

______________________________

27



ALICE BENNETT,


v. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

RIKARDS-HAYLEY

Defendant

_____________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANTS, RIKARDS-HAYLEY

The Plaintiff, ALICE BENNETT, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the request for admissions propounded by Defendant, RIKARDS-HAYLEY, on March 26, 2014 and states as follows:

QUESTION 1: Do you admit that prior to being hired by Rikards-Hayley you had seen a psychologist for marital problems?

RESPONSE: Object. Irrelevance.

QUESTION 2: Do you admit that any of your current medical or psychological problems are due exclusively to marital problems you presently experience?

RESPONSE: Deny. The Plaintiff believes that all medical problems were caused by the defendant’s actions.

QUESTION 3: Do you admit that any of your current medical or psychological problems are in part due to marital problems you presently experience?

RESPONSE: Deny. The Plaintiff believes that all medical problems were caused by the defendant’s actions.

QUESTION 4: Do you admit that you tendered an oral resignation of your position with defendant?

28

RESPONSE: Object. After plaintiff was notified of her termination she replied, “You can’t fire me. I quit”. Plaintiff denies that her remark was an oral resignation.

QUESTION 5: Do you admit that all of the medical bills claimed in the lawsuit have been covered by insurance?

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that all medical bills have been covered by insurance.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New York that the foregoing answers are true and correct.

___________________ __________

Alice Bennett Date

Respectfully submitted,___________________


Largo, MD


I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed by first class mail to Rickards-Hayley, New York, New York, on this 26th day of March 2014.

____________________________

29

SETTLEMENT LETTERTHE LAW OFFICE OF PGCC

301 LARGO RD, LARGO MD 20774

April 2, 2014

Attorney for Defendant123 Road St. New York, NY. 21200RE: Alice Bennett v. Rikards-Hayley Inc.Case No. 11-111-1111

Dear [Attorney],

In the interest of bringing the case of Alice Bennett v. Rikards-Hayley Inc., to a speedy and just conclusion, I have been authorized by my client, Mrs. Alice Bennett, to make the following settlement offer to your client. Please consult with your client, give this settlement offer all due consideration, and contact my office with your response within fourteen days from the receipt of this letter.

Plaintiffs Background: Mrs. Alice Bennett was born on September 9, 1974. She currently resides in New York, New York. She worked for Rikards-Hayley for four years before being terminated.

The Facts: Alice Bennett was denied a promotion and terminated.

Injuries to the Plaintiff: Emotional distress.

Medical Expenses: $10,000.00

Proposed Settlement: $1 million

As counsel for the plaintiff, I urge you to take this settlement offer to your client in the spirit in which it is offered. I will look forward to your affirmative response.

Very truly yours,____________________


Largo, MD

30

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

To: Robert Mason, JudgeFrom: Jamie Spaulding, ParalegalDate: 4/17/2014Client: Mayhab Oscar BlueCase: Captain Blue’s Blue Fin Crab Restaurant v. Superior Seafood Company, Inc. v. Roger Brown.

31

STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT

Our client has asked us to do everything in our power to make sure that his “breach of contract” suit is not transferred to federal court. This memorandum is an objective, critical analysis of the legal problem. It contains a summary of the relevant laws and how those laws apply to the facts of the case. Our goal is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the case and provide guidance as to how we can best represent our client.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Statement of Assignment 1

Issue 2

Brief Answer 2

Background Facts 2

Key Facts 3

Analysis 3

Case Law 4

Secondary Authority 4

Counter-analysis 5

Conclusion 5

Time Sheet 6

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases: Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 10, 2006. 437 F. 3d 894.

Constitutional Provisions: N/A

Statutes: “Diversity of Citizenship” 28 U.S.C. Section 1332

32

ISSUE

Under the federal law, can the Federal District Court of Baltimore hear a “breach of contract” case when the plaintiff filed the suit in Maryland and the company is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Louisiana and a local office in Maryland?

BRIEF ANSWER

No. The Federal District Court of Baltimore cannot hear a breach of contract case because the amount in question is below the $75,000.00 and there is no “Diversity of Citizenship”.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Our client, Mayhab Oscar Blue (hereafter referred to as Captain Blue), is the owner of Captain Blues Blue Fin Crab Restaurant in Stevensville, MD. Captain Blue entered into a contract with Roger Brown, a sales agent for Superior Seafood, Inc., a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Louisiana, to purchase 960 bushels of Maryland Blue Fin Crab meat at a rate of $50.00 a bushel. Under the contract, 30 bushels of Maryland Blue Fin Crab meat would have been delivered weekly beginning on May 15, 2012 until the 960 bushels have been delivered in full. Captain Blue agreed to pay a down payment of $25,000.00 by April 15, 2012 and make monthly payments of $3,125.00 on the 15th day of each month until paid in full. It was agreed upon by both parties that Maryland Blue Fin Crab meat is “very unique” and that if it is discovered that the delivered meat is not in fact Maryland Blue Fin Crab meat, it would constitute a breach of contract. It was also agreed upon that, “if the aforementioned breach should occur that the seller will pay to the restaurant liquidated damages not to exceed $25,000.00.” and, “In no event will the seller be responsible for more than $75,000.00 in total damages and costs.” Upon receipt of the first 30 bushels, Captain Blue suspected that the crab meat was not Maryland Blue Fin and sent samples to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Consumer Affairs division. The U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that Captain Blue was correct and the crab meat in question was in fact, not Maryland Blue Fin. Captain Blue then filed a “breach of contract” with the Circuit Court in Easton, Maryland. Superior Seafood filed a motion to have the case moved into Federal District Court in Baltimore. We have been directed to do everything in our power to prevent the suit from being transferred to the federal courts because it is our client’s belief that a local court has a better understanding of the significant difference between Blue Fin Crab meat and other crab meat.

33

KEY FACTS

I. Captain Blue entered into a contract with Superior Seafood, Inc. for Maryland Blue Fin Crab meat at a rate of $50.00 a bushel at 30 bushels a week until 960 bushels have been received.

II. Captain Blues restaurant is located in Stevensville, MD.III. Superior Seafood is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Louisiana and a

local office in Baltimore, MD.IV. The contract specifically stated that if the crab meat was not Maryland Blue Fin Crab

meat when received, there would be a breach of contract.V. The U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that the first shipment of crab meat

received from Superior Seafood was not Maryland Blue Fin Crab meat.VI. Both parties agreed that if there was a breach of contract, the seller would pay to the

restaurant damages not to exceed $25,000.00 VII. Both parties agreed that the seller will in no event be responsible for damages in

excess of $75,000.00.

ANALYSIS

The law governing civil suits in which the subject matter jurisdiction is in question is; 28 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1332. It specifies that in civil suits where the plaintiff and defendant reside in different states and the claim for money damages exceed $75,000.00 a “diversity of citizenship” exists. The following applies to our client’s case:

“(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-(1) citizens of different States” “(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title-(1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business, except that in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of--(A) every State and foreign state of which the insured is a citizen; (B) every State and foreign state by which the insurer has been incorporated; and (C) the State or foreign state where the insurer has its principal place of business.” (28 U.S.C. Section 1332)

Considering the fact that our client, Captain Blue, is not filing a suit for more than $75,000.00, the first element of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (“the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00”) is not met. The second element of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (“citizens of different states”) is not met because Superior Seafood Inc. has a local office in the

34

state of Maryland and is therefore considered to be a resident. In order for the federal district courts to hear a “diversity of citizenship” suit, both elements must be satisfied. It follows then that the federal district courts are unlikely to accept this case because the elements required for a “diversity of citizenship” to exist are not satisfied.

In regards to the suit brought against Roger Brown, it would hold true that since Mr. Brown is a resident of the same state as the plaintiff, Captain Blue, the first element of “diversity of citizenship” would not be satisfied and therefore the federal courts would not have subject matter jurisdiction over that suit either.

CASE LAW INTERPRETATION

The courts have interpreted 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 in a favorable way for our client. For example, in the case of Morris Johnson Jr. v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP the holding was that, “as a matter of first impression, a limited liability company (LLC) is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Applying this holding to our case, we see that because Superior Seafood Inc. has a local office with 17 employees in the state of Maryland, it would be considered a citizen of not only Louisiana and Delaware, but Maryland as well. This further supports our client’s position that the federal court lack subject matter jurisdiction. (Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 10, 2006. 437 F. 3d 894.)

SECONDARY AUTHORITY

Although secondary authority may not be necessary at this point, it is interesting to note because of the history surrounding Louisiana and “diversity of citizenship”. Below is taken from Legal Encyclopedia C.J.S., Federal Courts Section 55:

Before 1990, the Fifth Circuit had recognized a limited exception to this rule: in a limited partnership, only the citizenship of its general partners (and not that of its limited partners) was considered for diversity purposes, thus enhancing the possibility that complete diversity would be found. But the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this exception in its 1990 decision in Carden v. Arkoma Associates, and the Fifth Circuit has since rejected the argument that Louisiana's civil law, entity-based theory of partnership would remove its partnerships from the application of the Carden rule. (7 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Business Organizations § 6.14 2013 ed.)

What this means is that prior to the 1990 Supreme Court decision (Carden v. Arkoma Associates), Superior Seafood Inc. may have satisfied the first element of the “diversity of citizenship” law because even though they have a Baltimore branch with 17 employees, those employees may not have necessarily been general partners, and would not be considered for “diversity of citizenship” purposes. Because of the ruling in Carden v. Arkoma Associate’s,

35

Superior Seafood will find it difficult to dispute the contention that they are residents of Maryland.

COUNTER-ANALYSIS

Because the law of “diversity of citizenship” is mandatory authority and the facts of our client’s case do not meet the elements required of it, I do not see any areas that can be challenged by the defendant unless the key facts change.

CONCLUSION

Based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, our client has a strong case for preventing the suit from being transferred to the Federal District Court in Baltimore. In regards to the suit against Superior Seafood, Inc. the amount in question is below the $75,000.00 requirement of the “diversity of citizenship” statute, so the first element of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (amount must exceed $75,000.00) is not satisfied. In regards to the suit against Mr. Brown, the second element of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (citizens of different states), is not satisfied because Mr. Brown is a resident of the same state as our client. Considering the fact that 28 U.S.C Section 1332 is considered mandatory authority, and the facts of our clients case do not satisfy the required elements of the law, it is reasonable to presume that our clients suit will not be transferred to the Federal District Court in Baltimore.

36

Attorney at LawPGCC Law Firm

Largo, MD

DATE: April 18, 2014CLIENT: Mayhab Oscar BlueADDRESS: 123 Main St. Stevensville, MDRE: Breach of Contract Suit

DATE SERVICES PROVIDED BY HOURS SPENT TOTAL

2/29/2014 Initial interview Attorney 1.00 $200.00

3/05/2014 Document drafting Paralegal 1.00 $80.00

3/06/2014 Interview Paralegal 1.00 $80.00

3.09/2014 Legal Research Paralegal 4.00 $320.00

TOTAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES $680.00

DATE EXPENSES

3/01/2014 Court filing fee’s $60.00

TOTAL FOR EXPENSES $60.00

TOTAL BILL TO CLIENT $740.00

37

TRIAL NOTEBOOK

I. Pretrial

A. Initial Interview

B. Legal Research

C. EEAOC “Charge of Employment Discrimination”

II. Discovery

A. Discovery Plan of Action

B. Notice of Intent to take Oral Deposition

C. Evidence Chart

D. First Set of Interrogatories

E. First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant

F. Plaintiffs Response to Request for Admission Propounded by Defendant

III. Motions

A. Complaint: First Cause of Action

B. Notice of Motion to Amend the Complaint

IV. Stipulations and Orders

A. Stipulation and Order for Enlargement of Time

B. Stipulation and Order for Mental Examination

V. Settlement Offer

A. Settlement offer to Rickards-Hayley

VI. Attorney Notes

38



ALICE BENNETT,


v. NOTICE OF APPEAL

RIKARDS-HAYLEY

Defendant

_____________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Alice Bennett, Plaintiff herein, hereby appeals to the United States District Court for The Southern District of New York from the final judgment entered in this action on April 28, 2014

Submitted,______________________

Attorney for the PlaintiffPGCC Law Firm

Largo, MD

PORTFOLIO - spauldinginvestigations.com€¦ · PORTFOLIO The Spaulding Paralegal Firm, ... Sample...

Documents

Transcript of PORTFOLIO - spauldinginvestigations.com€¦ · PORTFOLIO The Spaulding Paralegal Firm, ... Sample...