Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/34463604/Answer-to-Defendant-Alemond-Motion-to-Stay-Proceedings-Pursuant-to-Service-Members-Civil-Relief-Act
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 18:18:21
Document Index: 208828918

Matched Legal Cases: ['§501', '§501', '§501', '§501', '§522', '§522', '§522', '§522', '§522', '§522']

Answer to Defendant Alemond Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to Service Members Civil Relief Act | Hearsay | Defendant
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin1IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS Mark R.McCoy, Plaintiff, -VSCITY OF FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, a municipal corporation, JOSHUA ALEMOND, and AARON NYMAN Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 10 L 75
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SERVICEMEMBER’S CIVIL RELIEF ACT, OBJECTIONS THERETO, AND MOTION TO DENY SAME NOW comes the Plaintiff, Mark R. McCoy, and hereby submits his Answers to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act, Objections thereto, and Motion to Deny Same, and in response thereto states as follows: Answer to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings 1. Plaintiff is in receipt of Defendant’s Motion to Stay
Proceedings Pursuant to the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act and Notice of Filing for the above captioned case. 2. Per Paragraph 1 of Defendant’s Motion to Stay, Defendant,
Joshua M. Alemond, states by way of said Motion that he is a Page 1 of 16
member of the Illinois National Guard. Plaintiff can neither confirm nor deny Defendant’s Paragraph 1, but will stipulate to the assertion made therein. 3. Per Paragraph 2 of Defendant’s Motion to Stay, Defendant,
Joshua M. Alemond, claims to have received orders for reporting to active duty for a period of time not to exceed 400 days. Plaintiff can neither confirm nor deny Defendant’s assertion in his Paragraph 2. 4. Per Defendant’s Exhibit A of Defendant’s Motion to Stay,
which is a document appearing to be issued under the authority of the “DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS” bearing the date of “23 MARCH 2010”, which the Defendant relies upon as “Orders” issued to the Defendant Joshua M. Alemond. Plaintiff can neither confirm or deny the authenticity or veracity of this attachment, as it lacks any signature, has been tampered with by way of redaction of information, speaks only to a specific period in time under which circumstances may not apply to the present, is of such a nature that only someone versed in understanding or interpreting the language and symbols used therein may be privy to the meaning of that attachment, and does not satisfy the intent nor the requirements set forth in the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act. For aforesaid reasons, Plaintiff can neither confirm or deny the Page 2 of 16
information represented by way of Defendant’s Exhibit A, nor agrees with that Exhibit’s applicability or relevance in seeking a Stay of these Proceedings pursuant to the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act and objects to same. 5. Per Paragraph 3 of Defendant’s Motion to Stay, Defense
counsel, Joshua Abern, claims to have spoken with an individual, Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the Illinois National Guard, Major Arthur Fager, represented to be within the chain of command of the Defendant, Joshua M. Alemond, and by way of a private conversation with said individual makes the claim of possessing detailed knowledge of Defendant Alemond’s deployment. Plaintiff can neither confirm nor deny that a conversation took place between Defense counsel, Joshua Abern, and said individual in which was discussed the Defendant, Joshua Alemond, and states further by way of objection that Defendant’s Paragraph 3 amounts to inadmissible hearsay, is of no value in satisfying requirements necessary to support Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings, is unsubstantiated, and likewise of no relevance to these proceedings. 6. Per Paragraph 4 of Defendant’s Motion to Stay, Defendant
relies upon 50 App. USCA §501, et seq., Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act for the authority in receiving a stay in these Page 3 of 16
Proceedings, and therefore controlling in this Case. Plaintiff agrees with Defendant’s Paragraph 4 insofar that 50 App. USCA §501, et seq., Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act is the proper authority for a Servicemember seeking a Stay of Proceedings, but disagrees that Defendant, Joshua M. Alemond, has satisfied all requirements of said Act necessary to enjoy any benefit of said Act. 7. Per Paragraph 4 of Defendant’s Motion to Stay, Defendant,
Joshua M. Alemond, seeks relief from these proceedings by way of the 50 App. USCA §501, et seq., Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act. Plaintiff agrees with Defendant’s Paragraph 4. 8. Per Paragraph 4 of Defendant’s Motion to Stay, Defendant has
included, by way of his Motion, excerpts from said Act, upon which he is relying for support. Plaintiff agrees with Defendant’s Paragraph 4 insofar as said Paragraph adequately represents pertinent provisions of the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act upon which the Defendant may base a claim for relief thereof. 9. Per Paragraph 5 of Defendant’s Motion to Stay, Defendant
claims that all conditions have been met. Plaintiff disagrees and claims that the Defendant has failed to meet all the requirements of the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act necessary to support his Page 4 of 16
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiff objects to DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE SERVICEMEMBER’S CIVIL RELIEF ACT (hereinafter referred to as SCRA) for lack of sufficiency in meeting necessary requirements. 2. Defendant has failed to provide, by way of his Motion,
information necessary to satisfy the requirements imposed under 50 App. USCA §501, et seq., (SCRA). 3. Defendant is entitled to a stay, upon application by the
servicemember, for a period of not less than 90 days provided that conditions in paragraph (2) are met. 50 App. USCA §522(b) (1).(Emphasis added) An additional stay (one which exceeds the initial 90 days) requires an additional request, which may be made at the time of the initial application, but which must include information required under subsection (b)(2). 50 App. USCA §522(d). Requirements for how such application by the servicemember shall be made is found at 50 App. USCA §522(b)(2). Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Motion on the basis that the Defendant has failed to provide, by way of his application, a letter or other communication which sets forth the facts which state the manner in which current military duty requirements Page 6 of 16
materially affect the servicemember’s ability to appear. Defendant has only alleged hearsay, by way of his Motion (Paragraph 3), which is not a “letter or other communication” and which sets forth no “facts which state the manner in which current military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember’s ability to appear”. Defendant’s “orders” (Exhibit A) also fail to conform to the same requirements. Any alleged “facts” are not stated clearly and subject to interpretation as well as the absence of any identifiable “material affect” regarding the Defendant’s ability to appear. Defendant has also failed to meet requirements of 50 App. USCA §522(b)(2)(B) which require, “A letter or other communication from the servicemember’s commanding officer stating that the service member’s current military duty prevents appearance and that military leave is not authorized for the servicemember at the time of the letter.” (Emphasis added) Both the alleged conversation between Defense Counsel and Major Arthur Fager, as well as Exhibit A, fail to meet requirements of SCRA. Major Arthur Fager is not the Defendant’s commanding officer, the conversation is not a letter or other communication (that which is in writing), and makes no mention of how the Page 7 of 16
Defendant’s current military duty prevents appearance, nor that military leave is not authorized. For reasons stated above Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Motion. 4. “Paragraph (2)(A)” states that an application for a stay
under paragraph 1 “shall include the following”: A letter or other communication setting forth the facts stating the manner in which current military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember’s ability to appear and stating a date when the servicemember will be available to appear. 50 App. USCA §522(b) (2)(A) (Emphasis added) 5. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Motion on the basis that he
has not satisfied the requirement imposed by “Paragraph (2)(A)” (Conditions for stay), as he has not provided “A letter or other communication.” It is the Plaintiff’s belief that “letter or other communication” means something reduced to writing and does not include a reference to a private conversation, as presented in Defendant’s Paragraph 3. Plaintiff objects further on the basis that alleged facts in Defendant’s Paragraph 3 are inadmissible hearsay and fail to meet any statutory or common law exceptions to rules governing hearsay. Plaintiff has no opportunity to cross-examine or impeach the declarant, nor ascertain the veracity of the statement proffered. For a Page 8 of 16
statement to considered in offering any kind of factual evidence the party making such assertions must be subject to crossexamination unless such assertions fall within an allowable exception. People v. Armstead, 322 Ill App 3d, 748 NE2d 691 (2001). Defendant’s counsel claims to have had a conversation with “Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the Illinois National Guard, Major Arthur Fager”, who, by Defendant’s own admission in Paragraph 3, is not the Defendant’s commanding officer (which lays the foundation for objections to follow), but who “represented” (Emphasis added) that “the Chief of Staff (a person unnamed) was within the chain of command of Alemond”. Plaintiff makes the objection that the alleged statement of Major Arthur Fager constitutes hearsay within hearsay. Even if the initial statement is within an exception to the hearsay rule, the statement itself contains impermissible hearsay. Neither of the parties upon whom the Defendant relies in supporting his assertions in Paragraph 3 can be considered unavailable for purposes of hearsay exceptions as there was apparently a conversation as recent as July 6, 2010 between Defense counsel and Major Arthur Fager. Nevertheless, upon the Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s Paragraph 3 for containing inadmissible hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, it is the Defendant’s burden Page 9 of 16
to establish the applicability of any exception in overcoming Plaintiff’s objection. People v. Smith, 152 Ill 2d 229, 604 NE2d 858 (1992); People v. Fomond, 273 Ill App 3d 1053, 652 NE2d 1322 (1995). 6. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Motion on the basis that he
has not satisfied the requirement imposed by “Paragraph (2)(A)” (Conditions for stay), as he has not provided “A letter or other communication.” It is the Plaintiff’s belief that “letter or other communication” means something reduced to writing and does not include a copy of the alleged orders issued to Defendant, Joshua M. Alemond, as presented by way of Defendant’s Paragraph 2 and Exhibit A. Defendant’s Exhibit A should be considered a private document for internal use specific to the functions of the Department of Military Affairs. Defendant’s Exhibit A are “orders” allegedly issued to Defendant, Joshua M. Alemond, and not a letter or other communication addressed to the Court for the purposes of seeking relief under the SCRA. Defendant’s Exhibit A displays redactions and superfluous information which is cryptic and indiscernible in supporting a request for stay pursuant to the SCRA. Plaintiff objects further on the basis that Defendant’s Exhibit A is inadmissible hearsay, as there is no authentication or other proof of genuineness and no witness upon Page 10 of 16
whom a basis for authentication may be relied. Exhibit A is inadmissible because it does not satisfy the best evidence rule. Plaintiff will stipulate that it may be unreasonable to demand the production of the original orders alleged to have been issued to the Defendant, but will defer to the Secondary Evidence Exception for the purposes of this objection. Defendant’s Exhibit A lacks necessary foundation for introduction as evidence as it has not been marked for identification. Also lacking is any evidence which establishes the existence of the original document, attests to the accuracy of the duplication, describes the time and place the copy was made, or explains why the original is unavailable. If Defendant’s Exhibit A is in-fact a representation of actual orders then the Exhibit cannot be relied upon it has been altered or modified from its original condition by way of redaction of information, and therefore not a true or accurate representation of the alleged orders issued to the Defendant. Defendant fails to explain the necessity for any alterations, as well as omitting the process by which the copy came to be and the person by whom it was created. 7. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Motion on the basis that he
has not satisfied the requirement imposed by “Paragraph (2)(A)” (Conditions for stay), as he has not “set forth the facts stating Page 11 of 16
the manner in which current military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember’s ability to appear”. The facts and supporting statements/Exhibits relied upon by the Defendant merely allude to, but do not prove, an obligation to report for active duty and how that duty materially affects the Defendant’s ability to appear. Active duty military service is, in itself, a mere contention of unavailability want of affirmative representations which do not warrant relief under SCRA. The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, U.S. Army, JA 260, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 59 (2006); Hibbard v. Hibbard, 431 N.W.2d 637, 639-40 (Neb. 1988). See also Hackman v. Postel, 675 Supp. 1132, 1134 (E.D. Ill. 1988. Taking into consideration the status of these proceedings which the Defendant seeks relief by way of SCRA, it is questionable whether an immediate or foreseeable appearance by the Defendant is at issue, thereby warranting a stay at this time. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant are involved in the discovery phase of this case. Plaintiff has not requested any discovery, such as depositions, which would demand the Defendant’s physical presence. If discovery demands evolve to include interaction with the Defendant while on active duty, there are alternatives available with the aid of technology which may permit such discovery while Defendant is deployed. A Page 12 of 16
stay, as it may relate to discovery, is not appropriate. Plaintiff does not disagree that the direction of these proceedings may, at some time, place a demand for the Defendant to physically appear, and is willing to entertain a subsequent Motion to Stay Proceedings pursuant to SCRA at that time, but it is the Plaintiff’s belief that the SCRA affords, insofar as the present demands placed upon all parties exist, relief from personally appearing for legal proceedings. The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, U.S. Army, JA 260, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 65 (2006); Keefe v. Spangenberg, 533 F. Supp. 49 (W.D. Okla. 1981) (court denied stay request to delay deposition, and suggested that service member agree to videotape deposition in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(b)(4)); see also In re Diaz, 82 B.R. 162, 165 (Bankr. D. Ga. 1988) (service members in Germany may make video depositions for use in trials in the United States, so Section 201 stay is not appropriate to delay discovery). The Defendant has not only failed to provide facts which speak to materiality, but he has also failed to identify the current military requirements of the Defendant, and whether there exists a demand on the Defendant to appear for discovery which would necessitate application to this Court for relief pursuant to Page 13 of 16
SCRA. Defendant has failed to meet the requirement of setting forth facts which state the manner in which the current military requirements materially affect the Defendant’s ability to appear, or more appropriately, whether an appearance is even required at the time of application for relief under SCRA. 8. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Motion on the basis that he
has not satisfied the requirement imposed by “Paragraph (2)(A)” (Conditions for stay), as he has not stated a date when the servicemember will be available to appear. Defendant has only alluded to a future period in time, and not a date, as required by 50 App. USCA §522(b)(2)(A). Defendant states by way of Paragraph 3 of his Motion, “until May or June 2011”, which is not a date. Motion to Deny Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court to deny Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act based upon the forgoing Answers and Objections herein stated. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark R. McCoy, hereby submits his Answers and Objections to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act, upon which Page 14 of 16
relies his Motion to Deny Defendant’s application for relief thereto, and thereby, prays this Honorable Court to deny Defendant’s Motion.
Mark McCoy, Plaintiff
STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR
) ) SS ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I served the forgoing Plaintiff’s Answers to Defendant’s First Request to Produce for Case No.: 10 L 75 to the following person(s): Julie A. Bruch Joshua S. Abern O’Halloran Kosoff Geitner & Cook, LLC 650 Dundee Road, Suite 475 Northbrook, Illinois 60062 and Dawn A. Sallerson Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP P.O. Box 509 521 West Main Street Belleville, Illinois 62222 and Clerk of the Circuit Court St. Clair County Courthouse 10 Public Square Belleville, Illinois 62220 via U.S. Mail by placing true and correct copies of the same in an envelope(s) addressed as set forth above and entrusting the receipt and care of said envelope(s) with a desk clerk at the U.S. Post Office in Collinsville, Illinois, 62234 on July 15, 2010.
Mark R. McCoy, Plaintiff
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulAnswer to Defendant Alemond Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to Service Members Civil Relief Act by Marc MkKoy0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionMcCoy v. Fairview Heights, Case 10-L-75, PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SERVICEMEMBER’S CIVIL RELIEF ACT, OBJECTIONS THERETO, AND MOTION TO DENY SAME. ...McCoy v. Fairview Heights, Case 10-L-75, PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SERVICEMEMBER’S CIVIL RELIEF ACT, OBJECTIONS THERETO, AND MOTION TO DENY SAME. This is my answer, objections, and motion in response to the Motion to Stay. This picks apart the Motion to Stay based on insufficiency in complying with the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act, under which the Defendant seeks protection and relief. I personally believe it is a solid motion and trust the court will deny the Defendant's MotionInterests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA)Download as DOC, PDF or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedPlaintiffs First Request to Produce to Joshua Alemond 10-L-75by Marc MkKoyMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights et al - Case 10-L-0075 Interrogatories to Joshua Alemondby Marc MkKoySecond Series First Request to Fairview Heightsby Marc MkKoyMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights Case 10-L-0075 Defendant's Objections to Interrogatory Answersby Marc MkKoyMcCoy v Fairview Heights 10-L-75 Defendants Answer to Original Complaintby Marc MkKoyAmended and Filed Lawsuit McCoy v Fairview Heights Et Al 10-L-75by Marc MkKoyMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights Case 10-L-0075 Amended Answers to Aaron Nyman Interrogatoriesby Marc MkKoyDefendant's Brief in Reply to Plaintiffs Answer to Stay Under SCRAby Marc MkKoyPlaintiffs Reply Brief in Support of His Objections to Defendants Motion to Stayby Marc MkKoyMotion for Leave to Present Sworn Complaints Before the Court Alleging Crimes and Offensesby Marc MkKoyMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights et al - Case 10-L-0075 Answer to Defendants First Request to Produceby Marc MkKoyMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights et al - Case 10-L-0075 Interrogatories to Defendant Fairview Heightsby Marc MkKoyFinal Determination McCoy v Fairview Heights Policeby Marc MkKoyMotion for Default Judgmentby Marc MkKoyLetter to State's Attorney, Chief Judge, and Circuit Clerk about official misconductby Marc MkKoyMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights et al - Case 10-L-0075 Plaintiff's Answers to Fairview Heights Interrogatoriesby Marc MkKoyPlaintiffs First Request to Produce to Aaron Nyman 10-L-75by Marc MkKoyAffidavit in Support of Default Judgmentby Marc MkKoy10-04-2016 ECF 1387 USA v a BUNDY Et Al - Second Response to Government Objections Re Exhibitsby Jack RyanHassler v. Shaw, 271 U.S. 195 (1926)by Scribd Government DocsRasmieh Odeh Case - Order Denying New Trialby Legal InsurrectionHofer et al v. Old Navy Inc. et al - Document No. 45by Justia.comCarl E. Enlow v. United States, 239 F.2d 887, 10th Cir. (1957)by Scribd Government DocsIn re: Apperson, 10th Cir. (2012)by Scribd Government DocsAdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC - Document No. 155by Justia.comcomplaint islamjur.docxby Giovanni GuevaraMotion For Detentionby Danny WicentowskiMassoli v. Regan Media, et al - Document No. 43by Justia.comSimilar To Answer to Defendant Alemond Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to Service Members Civil Relief ActSkip carouselPlaintiffs First Request to Produce to Joshua Alemond 10-L-75McCoy v. City of Fairview Heights et al - Case 10-L-0075 Interrogatories to Joshua AlemondSecond Series First Request to Fairview HeightsMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights Case 10-L-0075 Defendant's Objections to Interrogatory AnswersMcCoy v Fairview Heights 10-L-75 Defendants Answer to Original ComplaintAmended and Filed Lawsuit McCoy v Fairview Heights Et Al 10-L-75McCoy v. City of Fairview Heights Case 10-L-0075 Amended Answers to Aaron Nyman InterrogatoriesDefendant's Brief in Reply to Plaintiffs Answer to Stay Under SCRAPlaintiffs Reply Brief in Support of His Objections to Defendants Motion to StayMotion for Leave to Present Sworn Complaints Before the Court Alleging Crimes and OffensesMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights et al - Case 10-L-0075 Answer to Defendants First Request to ProduceMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights et al - Case 10-L-0075 Interrogatories to Defendant Fairview HeightsFinal Determination McCoy v Fairview Heights PoliceMotion for Default JudgmentLetter to State's Attorney, Chief Judge, and Circuit Clerk about official misconductMcCoy v. City of Fairview Heights et al - Case 10-L-0075 Plaintiff's Answers to Fairview Heights InterrogatoriesPlaintiffs First Request to Produce to Aaron Nyman 10-L-75Affidavit in Support of Default Judgment10-04-2016 ECF 1387 USA v a BUNDY Et Al - Second Response to Government Objections Re ExhibitsHassler v. Shaw, 271 U.S. 195 (1926)Rasmieh Odeh Case - Order Denying New TrialHofer et al v. Old Navy Inc. et al - Document No. 45Carl E. Enlow v. United States, 239 F.2d 887, 10th Cir. (1957)In reAdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC - Document No. 155complaint islamjur.docxMotion For DetentionMassoli v. Regan Media, et al - Document No. 43AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC - Document No. 313Haddad v. Indiana Pacers et al - Document No. 97Answer to Defendant Alemond Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to Service Members Civil Relief Act