Class Action Challenges Mandatory Electronic Filing

Recent Cases

Questions regarding whether LexisNexis Courtlink is licensed to do business in Georgia and the location of its registered agent prompted attorney Steven J. Newton to amend his complaint against the company and Fulton County State and Superior Court officials. Newton filed the federal class-action in June, claiming LexisNexis Courtlink and the court officials are running an illegal, mandatory, electronic filing system.

Newton contends that filings in Fulton County State and Superior Courts, filed through the LexisNexis File & Serve system, can cost up to $11 per filing in cases for which electronic filing is mandated by orders from Fulton County State and Superior Courts, and authorized by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners.

Shortly after filing the complaint in June, Newton said he realized the location of the registered agent of LexisNexis Courtlink had changed since he filed the original lawsuit in December 2007.
   
Newton withdrew his original lawsuit in March. He said that defendants' attorneys told him that LexisNexis Courtlink no longer existed in Georgia. After checking the Secretary of State Web site, Newton said, he saw that LexisNexis Courtlink had filed a certificate of withdrawal on Jan. 15, and was no longer licensed to do business in Georgia.

But Newton said the company continues to do business in Georgia, as he still receives invoices from it, and the company recently conducted training sessions in Atlanta. So, Newton said, he amended the first complaint to state that LexisNexis Courtlink can be served at the Atlanta address where it held training, or in Newton, Mass.

Attorneys for the defendants have requested more time to respond to the amended complaint. Newton said no additional time should be granted.

"It's pretty much the same complaint I filed (months ago,)" he said. 
 

Related listings

  • Man Says Eminem Sucker-Punched Him

    Man Says Eminem Sucker-Punched Him

    Recent Cases 07/15/2008

    Eminem sucker-punched a man as he used the urinal in a Detroit nightclub, the man claims in Oakland County Court. Miad Jarbou demands more than $100,000 from the rapper, whose real name is Marshall Mathers. Jarbou says he was using a urinal at Cheeta...

  • Man Says Social Security Guards Beat Him

    Man Says Social Security Guards Beat Him

    Recent Cases 07/11/2008

    Private contract guards hired by the Social Security Administration assaulted a man, fracturing his hand, and maliciously prosecuted him because he clipped his fingernails while waiting in the Social Security office, the man claims in Federal Court. ...

  • Forced Sterilization Is Persecution, Court Says

    Forced Sterilization Is Persecution, Court Says

    Recent Cases 07/10/2008

    A Chinese citizen should not be returned to her homeland due to the high probability that she would be forcibly sterilized, the 7th Circuit ruled. Xiu Zhen Lin, the mother of three, protested a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that she ha...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

West Hartford, Connecticut Special Education Lawyer Forte Law Group focuses on special education law and empowering parents to advocate for their child’s rights. >> read