New Software Platform ‘Instadocket’ Automatically Notifies Subscribers of New Docket Entries and More

legalyou_revolution

New Software Platform ‘Instadocket’ Automatically Notifies Subscribers of New Docket Entries and More

Wow, what a great new service offered up by Instadocket!

Docket checks can be a very timely task, especially when you are monitoring hundreds of cases. Here in Florida, It can take upwards of 10-15 hours a week to go through each case, update the record, address the issue and notify the client. Although it is a daunting task, we would almost considerate malpractice if a firm did not do docket checks. I would say that at the least 10-15% of cases monitored have had a ‘surprise’ docket entry which would not have been know otherwise if it weren’t for docket checks.

Instadocket, unfortunately only currently available in Massachusetts, notifies the subscriber by email of changes to their MassCourts.org docket as soon as they occur. Once registered, Instdocket monitors all of your cases (up to 250) for $15 a month.

Not only does Instadocket notify subscribers of docket changes, it also creates a calendar of their upcoming court dates. The calendar can even be integrated into most scheduling platforms.

Although we do not have access to Instadocket here in Florida, we do have access to LegalYou, (Launching Soon!) which can provide these types of services to self represented litigants.

Don’t assume everything will be noticed. You have to stay on top of all aspects of your case, or at the least, have someone do it for you.

LegalYou, all you need for your case in one place.

Any other questions you have regarding this or other legal matters, visit LegalYou.com.

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
One Response to “New Software Platform ‘Instadocket’ Automatically Notifies Subscribers of New Docket Entries and More”
  1. Lisa Campbell says:

    Lcampbell92129@att.net

    Hello, Posting from San Diego California. Currently I am representing myself in San Diego Civil Superior Court. I was represented by 2 separate Attornney’s at different times. Our 1st attorney was dissbarred after filing our case, our 2nd attorney at his request was removed as councel due to me running out of funds and his office to small to go up againts a large law firm. This happened right before the trial. Our trial took place in January 2015, but my ability to perform on the day of trial due to my health. But we proceeded through the day. I did not submit my evidence although I have it. I have epilepsy and other neurological disorder and my thought process and ability to speak stopped. I am the Plainteff in the case and had been waiting for my day in court and I failed, sadly.

    The case is still pending at “pre-Judgment” status. Defendants filed a Notice of Entry of Judgement or Order October 2, 2015. For attorney fees.
    The case overview was for Foreclosure and eviction proceedings 1)breach of contract 2)fraud 3) wrongful foreclosure 4) identity theft 5)intentional infliction of emotional distress. 
    _____________________________

    The day after trial the court had a “Minute Order” titled “Tentative Decision Following Bench Trail” Reads as follows:

    At the conclusion of plaintiffs case in chief on the Jan 6, 2015 defendants made a motion for judgment pursuant to CCP section 631.8. A motion under section 631.8 is the bench trial analog of a motion under CCP section 581c(a) in a jury trial. Such a motion may only be granted if the court finds, after considering all the evidence presented by plaintiff, that plaintiff has not carried her burden of proof as to at least one element of each cause of action presented for decision. A motion under section 631.8 shortens the trial by dispensing with the need for the moving party to present evidence. Heap v. GeneralMotors Corp., 66 Cal. App. 3d 824, 829 (1977). In ruling on such a motion, the court is entitled to weigh the evidence, and may disbelieve witnesses. Greening v. General Air-Conditioning Corp., 233 Cal. App.2d 545, 550 (1965); Roth v. Parker, 57 Cal. App. 4th 542, 550 (1977). The court is also entitled to draw conclusions that are at odds with expert opinion. County of Ventura v. Marcus, 139 Cal. App. 3d 612, 617 (1983). A motionunder section 631.8 may be granted as to some, but not all, issues. Swanson v. Skiff, 92 Cal. App. 3d 805, 810 (1979). When the court grants such a motion, it must thereafter follow the procedures required by CCP section 642 and CRC 3.1590.

    This is the courts tentative decision in accordance with CCP section 632 and CRC 3.1590. The tatntative decision will become the Statement of Decision (SOD) unless either party takes the steps called for in CRC 3.1590. In this event the court designates Defendants attorney to prompltly prepare the SOD. It must incorporate this tentative decision in Haec verba (although the SOD may go beyond the TD. Plaintiffs take nothing on the SAC. 
    __________________________

    Presently, I have scheduled an Ex-Parte hearing with the Judge for Tues. Morning December 8th. I noticed this past week, after reading the tentitive decision hundreds of time over and over there is an administrative error of the date of the contract. It reads on March 2009, plaintiffs entered in to a written agreement with defendants to modify the 2nd mortgage. The correct date should read on MARCH 2010. Reflectiong the correct date would explain to the court why I was unaware of the foreclosue that took place May 7, 2010. Our modification agrement was signed notorized in March, returned to the 2nd lienholder 1st of April, and May 1st 2010 the modification went in to effect. We were blindsided when the 2nd lienholder foreclosed. Never did I live in my home for free, I paid the 2nd lienholder throughout the approval period and was current on my 1st loan. I was shocked.

    Additionally, I want to be able to submitt my evidence to the court?

    Thank you so much to everyone that takes time to read my post! This has been an eye opening experiance. I feel my case shold not be ignored due to technicality, as our court should partake in a game knowing I would fail horribly because of me reprensenting myself. There is definate bias in the court system to those of us without attorneys. Trust me I tried to find legal assistance but it is difficult for an attorney to step in, so late in the game.
    Take care!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *