Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Write Petition for Writ of Certiorari from information provided in the paper details below (see attachment as an example). Be sure to read Maryland Rule 8-303 carefully for information regarding the procedure for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. 1. A petition for writ of certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals seeking review of a decision of the Court of Special Appeals is to be filed no later than 15 days from the date of the mandate of the Court of Special Appeals. A petition seeking review of a circuit court decision on appeal from the District Court of Maryland is to be filed 30 days from the date of the judgment of the circuit court. 2. An original and seven copies of a petition are required. 3. A filing fee of $61.00 is also required. 4. A petition is not to exceed 3,900 words in length (not including attachments). 5. Attachments to the petition are: a. Docket entries evidencing the judgment of the circuit court. b. Any opinion of the circuit court. c. Any written order issued under Rule 2-602(b). d. If the case has not been decided by the Court of Special Appeals, all briefs that have been filed in the Court of Special Appeals; and e. Any opinion of the Court of Special Appeals. 6. An answer to a petition is due 15 days from the filing date of the petition. An original and seven copies of the answer must be filed. There is no filing fee for answers. 7. A cross petition requires a $61.00 filing fee, and an original and seven copies of the cross petition must be filed. 8. Petitions usually take six to eight weeks to be acted on by the Court. For more information or clarification, refer to Chapter 300 of Title 8 of the Maryland Rules. INFORMATION: Lot 31 Development Statutory Trust, Appellee, v. XXXXXXX XXXXX, Appellant. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 0F MARYLAND September Term, 2019 Petition Docket No. Petition for Writ of Certiorari COMES NOW, the Tenant XXXXXXX XXXXX, moves the Court under Md. Rule 8-301 for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review the above-captioned case. In support 0f this petition, and in accordance with Md. Rule 8-303(b)(1) and (2), the State notes the following: Further, the substitution of Plaintiff was not done properly. More particularly, 1. The original Appellee, LOT 31 DEVELOPMENT STATUTORY TRUST, brought this landlord tenant holdover action in the Fall of 2017. Defendant appeared pro se and explained to the Court, the Hon. John Moffett that his defense was retaliatory eviction. The Court told the Defendant that retaliatory eviction was something that had to be filed in Circuit Court. The Court entered judgement, the Defendant retained the undersigned to represent him on the appeal. After reviewing the defendants brief, the Attorney for the landlord Plaintiff agreed that the defense was cognizable in District Court and agreed that the matter should be remanded. The Circuit Court, the Hon. Gary Bair, reversed and remanded the case to District Court on or about February 26th 2018. 2. Shortly after the remand, LOT 31 DEVELOPMENT STATUTORY TRUST, the Plaintiff, apparently sold the building. Defendant, believing the new landlord did not go forward with the eviction, filed a pro se motion seeking the return of his bond on or about May 16th 2018. His money was returned, but the Court never acted on his motion. Instead, on or about July 6th, the clerk’s office sent out a notice marked “Hearing on Motion” set for August 1st 2018 at 10:15 am (Ex. A) . While Defendant had already received the return of his bond, this was the only motion pending according to case search. The Defendant believed that the August 1st proceeding was about his hearing for the motion to return his bond. Consequently, after discussing the notice he received with the undersigned (who was out of the state on vacation) he elected to go to Court and let the Court know the matter was moot, since he received his money. 3. That when Defendant arrived in Court on or about August 1st he learned that the Court intended to retry the holdover case that day. Defendant asked for a brief continuance to retain the undersigned. He did not have the exhibits to support his claim for retaliatory eviction . At the same time, he advised the court that the building had been sold and that he did not think that the new landlord was going to go forward with the eviction. It was only then Plaintiff moved to substitute a new Plaintiff for LOT 31 DEVELOPMENT STATUTORY TRUST. 4. The Court refused to grant Defendant a continuance. Defendant was unable to make an effective presentation of the retaliatory eviction defense and the Court entered a judgement for the Plaintiff. 5. That Defendant was unfairly surprised by the turn of events. The notice Defendant received does indicate only a hearing on a motion was scheduled on August 1st, not a trial. It was reasonable for him to wait until he knew there would be a trial before retaining counsel. The notices in this matter have been confusing Since the hearing on August 1st, the clerk’s office generated a notice confirming that the judgment entered November 1st had been vacated, and that Defendant “would be notified of further proceeding” (Ex. B). The Court had already gone ahead with those further proceedings on five days before. If Defendant was not properly prepared, it was because he was not properly put on notice. The undersigned is prepared to represent the Defendant at a trial on the merits and present evidence and arguments in favor of his retaliatory eviction defense. 6. Further, it appears the substitution of a new Plaintiff was not done properly, Rule 3-241 (b) provides that a party may file a notice of substitution, Plaintiff did not. The rule provides that the “notice shall set forth the reason for the substitution… and the notice shall be served on all parties according to rule 1-321…”. The Plaintiff gave no details about the sale or any election to go forward, and never served Defendant, who may have verified that whether the new landlord wanted to evict him. Indeed, had Defendant been given a timely notice of substitution he would have been aware that a trial was pending and retained counsel in time. 7. In short, Defendant believes he is the victim of retaliation, Plaintiff would never give any non-retaliatory reason why his lease was not renewed. He was never given proper notice that the trial would go forward on August 1st. The undersigned is prepared to represent the Defendant in this matter and requests a new trial.

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon

Order Now