Second Generation Electronic Filing Specifications
 

Staff and Consultants
Winchel "Todd" Vincent III, Author
WTVIII, Inc. and <xmlLegal>
Todd.Vincent@xmllegal.org
Christopher Smith,
Senior Business Systems Analyst
California Administrative Office of the Courts
christopher.smith@jud.ca.gov
 
CodeTable Schema
Last Updated: 2008-12-18
 

Schema Namespace and Documentation
http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Policy/02/CodeTable/01/
Schema Prefix
CodeTable
Schema Repository Location
http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Policy/02/CodeTable/01/CodeTable.xsd
 
Table of Contents
1. Elements
 Internal
  1.1. CodeTable
  1.2. Codes
  1.3. Name
  1.4. Alias
  1.5. CourtKeys
  1.6. CourtKey
  1.7. Mappings
  1.8. Mapping
  1.9. Filters
  1.10. Specification
  1.11. ElementName
  1.12. XPathLocation
 External
  1.13. Filter
  1.14. Code
2. Simple Types
  2.1. YesNo
  2.2. Uses
  2.3. CodeTypes
  2.4. CodifiedNames
3. Imported Schemas
  3.1. Attributes
  3.2. Filter
  3.3. Code
4. Change History
  4.1. 2003-02-18
  4.2. 2003-02-23
  4.3. 2003-04-29
  4.4. 2003-07-01
  4.5. 2003-07-02
  4.6. 2003-07-16
  4.7. 2003-07-23
  4.8. 2003-07-27
  4.9. 2004-02-29
  4.10. 2004-04-20
  4.11. 2004-04-29
  4.12. 2004-04-30
  4.13. 2004-08-02
  4.14. 2004-08-05
  4.15. 2004-09-14
  4.16. 2005-06-05
  4.17. 2005-06-25
  4.18. 2005-10-06
  4.19. 2008-10-01
  4.20. 2008-11-13
  4.21. 2008-12-18
5. Legal Notices
6. Authors and Contributors

1. Elements

1.1. CodeTable:CodeTable
Content Model: sequence
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
Name11
Alias01
CourtKeys11
Mappings01
Filters01
Codes11

Attribute(s)typeusefixed/default
AlphabetizeYesNooptionalNone
UseUsesoptionalNone
CodifiedNameCodifiedNamesrequiredNone

Introduction

[1]   The CodeTable element is the intended root element of the schema. A CodeTable element and its children elements contain values for court case management system code tables. For example, court code tables might include case categories or document types.

[2]  The following definitions are used in this documentation and are meant to represent the hierarchy of a court structure: (a) Country, (b) State, (c) County, (d) Court, (e) Location, (f) Division, (g) Subdivision, and (h) Group. The term division with a small d is meant to generically refer to any of the structural names listed above.

[3]  A single Court Policy is able to represent code tables for either (a) one division of one court or (b) several divisions of one court. A single Court Policy does not represent code tables for more than one court.

[4]  Different courts often have different names for the same or similar types of code tables. Policy XML allows a court to preserve its customary code table name, while providing a facility that allows service providers to map like-code-tables-to-like-code-tables.

[5]  Some courts use either numeric or alphanumeric code values along with human-readable code values. Policy XML supports mapping human-readable code values to numeric or alphanumeric code values.

Court Keys

[6]  Cases are initiated in a division of a court and are often categorized as case types based on the court division. The applicability of a code table is sometimes dependent on the case type. As a result, Policy XML is able to express code table associations at the lowest level division. Policy XML makes such associations using court key values.

[7]  For example, if a division of a court is Civil, then a code table named Case Category might have a court key (such as, USCASacramentoSuperiorCivil) associated with the following code table values: (a) Auto Tort, (b) Other PI/PD/WD, (c) Other Tort, (d) Employment, (e) Contract, (f) Real Property, (g) Unlawful Detainer, (h) Judicial Review, (i) Complex Litigation, (j) Enforcement of Judgment, (k) Other Civil, and (l) Small Claims Appeals.

[8]  A criminal court would have a different court key (such as, USCASacramentoSuperiorCriminal) and a different set of values for a case category table. Since each court key is unique to a division of a court, when a court key is associated with a code table, it is possible to programmatically associate the code table values with a division of court (i.e., civil case categories are associated with civil court; criminal case categories are associated with criminal court).

Generic Types

[9]  Policy XML supports Generic Types. Generic Types are general, vendor (or California AOC) approved and agreed code names and table names that allow applications to map like-code-tables-to-like-code-tables or like-codes-to-like-codes, even though different courts call the same value by a different name.

[10]  For example, assume the following values in Court 1, Court 2, Court 3, and Court 4:

[11]  Court 1, Party Type = DEF.

[12]  Court 2, Party Type = Defendant.

[13]  Court 3, Party Type = defendant.

[14]  Court 4, Party Type = Child.

[15]  In this example, while these values may be important to each court, a filing application wants to know, in an automated way, a unique value for each of these meanings so that software can be written and workflow can proceed in the same way for different courts.

[16]  In the example above, the Court Policy solution is to create a limited number of Generic Party Types. For example:

[17]  Court 1, Party Type = DEF, Generic Party Type = Defendant.

[18]  Court 2. Party Type = Defendant, Generic Party Type = Defendant.

[19]  Court 3, Party Type = defendant, Generic Party Type = Defendant.

[20]  Court 4, Party Type = Child, Generic Party Type = Defendant

[21]  Examples of Generic Party Types might include: Plaintiff, Defendant, Attorney, or Judge.

[22]  There can be Generic Types for both code tables and for codes. The goal in defining any category of Generic Type values should be to define five to twenty distinct, agreed, generalized values that map to more specific values in court code tables. It is impossible to define all Generic Types to fit all situations; however, even a minimal number of agreed Generic Types will facilitate communication and interoperability among software applications.

Code Table Dependencies

[23]  Some code table values are dependent on other code table values at a higher level. For example, values that populate a case category list might depend on a prior selection from a list of case types. If the case type is unlawful detainer, then only case categories related to unlawful detainer are relevant in a dependent list. Policy XML is able, therefore, to express code table dependencies between higher level code tables and lower level code tables using filters. Representing such dependencies or creating new dependencies is optional in Policy XML. See CodeTable:Filter element for more information.

Alphabetize and Use Attributes

[24]   The CodeTable element has an Alphabetize attribute. The Alphabetize attribute is used to suggest to an application whether to alphabetize a code table list when presenting it to users or whether to keep the values in document order. The attribute is only a suggestion. An application may ignore the Alphabetize attribute.

[25]   The CodeTable element has a Use attribute. The Use attribute tells an application whether the code table is (a) Required, (b) Optional, (c) Depreciated, or (d) Private. Depreciated means that a code table value is acceptable but not the preferred value. For example, if there were two values with the same meaning, such as PLF and Plaintiff, PLF might be depreciated, while Plaintiff would be the preferred term. A Private table would be a table that is in Policy XML for use by the court or by a vendor, but which is not intended to be displayed to end users.

Codified Names

[26]  The attribute CodifiedName allows policy developers to use standard names. This attribute takes a number of enumerated values. A value Other is included for names that do not match any codified name.

1.2. CodeTable:Codes
Content Model: sequence
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
Code1unbounded

[27]  CodeTable:Codes is a container element for one or more CodeTable:Code elements.

[28]  The following table illustrates a simple code table and four code values. Assume the code table below has a CodeTable:Name value equal to Document Type.

NameValueAliasGeneric Type
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT0001Motion: Summary JudgmentMotion
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL0002Motion: New TrialMotion
MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT0003Motion: Directed VerdictMotion
MOTION FOR FEE WAIVER0004Motion: Fee WaiverFee Waiver

[29]  Notice in the example above that code 0004 has a generic type equal to Fee Waiver, which is different than the generic types for the other motions. This is an illustration of how a generic type can be used to trigger special processing. See the Document:GenericType element in Filing XML for more information.

[30]  See also the Code schema.

1.3. CodeTable:Name
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[31]  CodeTable:Name is the exact string value of the code table name in the court case management system. This string is used to match the Policy XML's CodeTable:Name value with the case management system code table name.

1.4. CodeTable:Alias
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[32]  CodeTable:Alias is an optional element that can be used to map the court case management system code table name (e.g., CodeTable:Name value) to either (a) a human readable name or (b) to a standard table name adopted for multiple case management systems in the jurisdiction. Use of CodeTable:Alias in situation (b) is recommended for harmonizing code table names on a state or federal level.

1.5. CodeTable:CourtKeys
Content Model: sequence
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
CourtKey1unbounded

[33]  CodeTable:CourtKeys is a container element for one or more CodeTable:CourtKey elements.

1.6. CodeTable:CourtKey
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[34]  CodeTable:CourtKey is a value for a court key for the court or a court division listed in the Policy XML. For example, if a court is divided into criminal and civil divisions, then the Policy XML for the court will have two court keys, one for each division of the court. By associating a court key value with a code table, the CodeTable:CourtKey element can be used to distinguish code tables used for each division of the court.

[35]  If there are two code tables that are exactly the same (such as a code table for Salutations), then the code table can be associated with more than one court key corresponding to the court divisions in which the code table is used.

[36]  The Policy:CourtDetails and CourtDivision:CourtDetails elements in Policy XML includes each division's CourtDetails:CourtKey. See the CourtDetails schema.

1.7. CodeTable:Mappings
Content Model: sequence
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
Mapping1unbounded

[37]  CodeTable:Mappings is a container element for one or more CodeTable:Mapping elements . See CodeTable:Mapping element for more information.

1.8. CodeTable:Mapping
Content Model: sequence
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
Specification11
ElementName11
XPathLocation1unbounded

Attribute(s)typeusefixed/default
CodeTypeCodeTypesrequiredNone

[38]  CodeTable:Mapping is used to map code tables to XML specifications. For example, if a code table value is Case Categories, then information in the CodeTable:Mapping element can be used to map the CaseCategory element in Legal XML Court Filing 1.0 to the list of values in the code table. In the same way, the CodeTable:Mapping element can be used to map to the Case:CaseCategory element in 2GEFS Filing XML.

[39]  CodeTable:Mapping has an attribute CodeType that can have two values (a) CodeName and (b) CodeGenericType. CodeName means the mapping is to the Code:Name element, while CodeGenericType means the mapping is to Code:GenericType element.

1.9. CodeTable:Filters
Content Model: sequence
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
Filter1unbounded

[40]   The CodeTable:Filters element is a container element for one or more Filter elements. See Filter element for more information.

1.10. CodeTable:Specification
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[41]  CodeTable:Specification is a unique name of the specification to which a code table is intended to be mapped.

1.11. CodeTable:ElementName
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[42]  CodeTable:ElementName is the name of the element or attribute, including the namespace prefix if it exists, in the specification being mapped.

1.12. CodeTable:XPathLocation
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[43]  CodeTable:XPathLocation is a valid XPath string that points to the element or attribute in the specification being mapped.

1.13. CodeTable:Filter
Data Type: Filter:Filter
go to top

[44]  Some code table values are dependent on other code table values at a higher level. For example, values that populate a case category list might depend on a prior selection from a list of case types. If the case type is unlawful detainer, then only case categories related to unlawful detainer are relevant in a dependent list. Policy XML is able, therefore, to express code table dependencies between higher level code tables and lower level code tables using filters. Representing such dependencies or creating new dependencies is optional in Policy XML.

[45]  Although representing such dependencies could be done with a longer court key, it would make the court key very long. Further, the court key would no longer represent a physical/logical division of the court, but rather a case type (or something else) of a division within a court. This is undesirable.

[46]  Based on the assumptions that such dependencies (a) are complex, varied, and specific to an implementation and (b) do not always occur, Policy XML represents dependencies using generic CodeTable:Filters and CodeTable:Filter elements. These elements operate as described in the following paragraphs.

[47]  Each code table or code has one or more CodeTable:Filters/CodeTable:Filter elements. Each CodeTable:Filter element has a name and a value. Either the court can publish filters or a service provider can create its own filters by manipulating a local version of Policy XML. The name/value pair can be any name and value.

[48]  Assume the following:

[49]  (a) Court Key = USCASacramentoJuvenile (applies to both tables).

[50]  (1) Code Table = Filing Type, (1.1) Code Name = Complaint, (1.2) Code Name = Transfer.

[51]  (2) Code Table = Case Category, (2.1) Code Name = Delinquent, (2.2) Code Name = Unruly, (2.3) Code Name = Traffic, (2.4) Code Name = Adoption.

[52]  In this example, Delinquent, Unruly, and Traffic are always based on Complaints. Adoptions can be either Complaints (to the Juvenile Court) or Transfers (from Superior Court).

[53]  By adding the following filters, dependencies are represented:

[54]  Code Name = Delinquent, Filter: Name = Filing Type, Value = Complaint.

[55]  Code Name = Unruly, Filter: Name = Filing Type, Value = Complaint.

[56]  Code Name = Traffic, Filter: Name = Filing Type, Value = Complaint.

[57]  Code Name = Adoption, Filter: Name = Filing Type, Value = Complaint, Filter: Name = Filing Type, Value = Transfer.

[58]  If Complaint were selected as the Filing Type, then all four case categories would apply. However, if Transfer were selected as the Filing Type, then only the Adoption case category would apply.

[59]  An application using Policy XML may decide to use or ignore the Filters as it sees fit.

[60]  It may not be possible to achieve all code table dependencies using this generic Policy XML filter technique. Some configuration and value added services should be provided by service providers.

1.14. CodeTable:Code
Data Type: Code:Code
go to top

[61]  CodeTable:Code is an individual code in a code table. See the Code schema.

2. Simple Types

2.1. YesNo
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top
Enumeration(s)

Value
Yes
No
2.2. Uses
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top
Enumeration(s)

Value
Required
Optional
Depreciated
Private
2.3. CodeTypes
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top
Enumeration(s)

Value
CodeName
CodeGenericType
2.4. CodifiedNames
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top
Enumeration(s)

Value
Alternate Names - All
Alternate Names - Organization
Alternate Names - Person
Authorized Service Providers
Calendar - Types
Case - Types
Case - Categories
Case - Initiation Reasons
Case - Jurisdictional Amounts
Case - Subtypes
Charge - Types
Charge - NCIC Codes
Charge - State Codes
Contact - Address Types
Contact - Email Types
Contact - Phone Types
Contact - Web Types
Court - Departments
Court - Divisions
Court - Groups
Court - Locations
Court - Subdivisions
Court - Types
Document - Generic Types
Document - Types
Event - Types
Location - Country Codes
Location - County Codes
Location - State Codes
Location - Street Suffixes
Message - Types
Organization - Types
Person - Blood Types
Person - DNA Loci
Person - Drivers License Types
Person - Ethnicities
Person - Eye Colors
Person - Genders
Person - Hair Colors
Person - Languages Spoken
Person - Marital Statuses
Person - Medical Conditions
Person - Military Branches
Person - Occupations
Person - Religions
Roles - All
Roles - Officials
Roles - Organizations
Roles - Parties
Roles - People
Roles - Things
Schema - Case Type
Schema - Document Type
Supported Descriptions - People
Supported Identifiers - Organizations
Supported Identifiers - People
Other

3. Imported Schemas

3.1. Attributes
go to top
Namespace
  http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/BuildingBlocks/Attributes/03/
  
3.2. Filter
go to top
Namespace
  http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/BuildingBlocks/Primitives/Filter/03/
  
3.3. Code
go to top
Namespace
  http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Policy/02/CodeTable/Code/01/
  

4. Change History

4.1. 2003-02-18
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Added structured copyright and update history.

4.2. 2003-02-23
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Changed documentation annotations from complexTypes to elements so they would show up in XML Spy.

4.3. 2003-04-29
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/Policy/01/CodeTable/01/
go to top

4.4. 2003-07-01
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/Policy/Test01/CodeTable/01/
go to top

Copied. Added Filters and Filter elements.

4.5. 2003-07-02
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Normalized using xmlLegal Normalizer 0.0.9.

4.6. 2003-07-16
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Corrected incorrect schemaLocation paths.

4.7. 2003-07-23
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Policy/Test01/CodeTable/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.8. 2003-07-27
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Normalized using xmlLegal Normalizer 0.0.9.

4.9. 2004-02-29
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Updated documentation. Added explanation of how to associate code tables would court keys. Added explanation for name/value pairs. Added examples for Filters and Filter elements. Added explanatory text about Specific Types.

4.10. 2004-04-20
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Policy/Test02/CodeTable/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.11. 2004-04-29
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Added CodeTable:CourtKeys so that multiple court keys (i.e., court divisions) can be associated with one table. Changed CodeTable:CourtKey documentation to explain this change. Changed documentation to reflect change in terminology from "Specific Type" to "Generic Type."

4.12. 2004-04-30
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Normalized using xmlLegal Normalizer 0.1.0.

4.13. 2004-08-02
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Policy/Test03/CodeTable/01/
go to top

Copied. Added CodeType attribute to the CodeTable:Mapping element. Added CodeTypes simpleType.

4.14. 2004-08-05
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Normalized using xmlLegal Normalizer 0.1.0.

4.15. 2004-09-14
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Policy/Test04/CodeTable/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.16. 2005-06-05
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Policy/01/CodeTable/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.17. 2005-06-25
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Changed Attributes schema to 03 version.

4.18. 2005-10-06
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Edited documentation. Changed value Prohibited value in Uses simpleType to Private.

4.19. 2008-10-01
Editor: Schema Generator
go to top

Normalized using xmlSchemaGenerator Normalizer 0.1.5.

4.20. 2008-11-13
Editor:
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Policy/Test06/CodeTable/01/
go to top

Copied. Added CofifiedName attribute and CodifiedNames simpleType. Replaced Filter elements with Filter schema.

4.21. 2008-12-18
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Corrected attribute CodifiedName type from xsd:string to CodifiedNames.

5. Legal Notices

Unless otherwise agreed, All Rights Reserved except those granted by xmlLegal General Public License at:

LICENSED WORKS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," AND HOLDERS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF THE LICENSED WORKS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.

HOLDERS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THE LICENSED WORKS.

Contact Winchel "Todd" Vincent III (Todd.Vincent@xmllegal.org) or xmlLegal Help (help@xmllegal.org) for more information.

6. Authors and Contributors


Staff and Consultants
Winchel "Todd" Vincent, III, Author
WTVIII, Inc. and <xmlLegal>
Todd.Vincent@xmllegal.org
Kevin Stannard, Original Editor
Swiftnet Solutions, Ltd.
kevin.stannard@swiftnet-solutions.com
Charlene Hammitt, Project Director
California Administrative Office of the Courts
charlene.hammitt@jud.ca.gov
Christopher Smith, Senior Business Systems Analyst
California Administrative Office of the Courts
christopher.smith@jud.ca.gov
Tom Smith, Consultant
AVI/IT Decision
tjsmith@itdecision.com
Courts
Contra Costa Superior Court (http://cc-courts.org/)
Kathy Ridgeway, KRIDG@sc.co.contra-costa.ca.us
Karen Ortega, KORTE@sc.co.contra-costa.ca.us
Orange Superior Court (http://www.occourts.org/)
Allen Jensen, ajensen@occourts.org
SacramentoSuperior Court (http://www.saccourt.com/)
Doug Kauffroath, KauffrD@saccourt.com
Ryan Hurlock, HurlocR@saccourt.com
Judith Kerrin, KerrinJ@saccourt.com
Marcia Barclay, BarclaM@saccourt.com
Huldeni "Zito" Souza, SouzaH@saccourt.com
Michael Alexander, AlexanM@saccourt.com
Gary Nishi, NishiG@saccourt.com
San Mateo Superior Court (http://www.sanmateocourt.org/)
Tim Benton, tbenton@co.sanmateo.ca.us
Rick Walery, rwalery@sanmateocourt.org
Bill Harven, wharven@sanmateocourt.org
Carrie Warren, cwarren@sanmateocourt.org
Santa Clara Superior Court (http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/)
Barry Lynch, blynch@scscourt.org
Deborah Barker, dbarker@scscourt.org
Francine Collier, fcollier@scscourt.org
 
Contributors
counterclaim, inc. (http://www.counterclaim.com)
Shogan Naidoo, shogan@counterclaim.com
Michelle Naidoo, mnaidoo@counterclaim.com
Jim Beard, beard@counterclaim.com
Jason Van Cleve, jason@vancleve.com
Deloitte Consulting (http://www.deloitte.com/)
Bruce Scheffle, bscheffel@deloitte.com
E-Filing.com (http://www.e-filing.com)
Mohammed Shaikh, mohammed@e-filing.com
Amrit Singh Nandrey, amrit@imagexx.com
Prabhath Pallati, prabhath@imagexx.com
Essential Publishers (http://www.essentialpublishers.com)
Martin Dean, dean@epubs.org
George Rothbart, george@softsci.com
Glotrans (http://www.glotrans.com)
Andy Jamieson, ajam@glotrans.com
Conor Dixon, conordixon@comcast.net
Intresys (http://www.intresys.com)
Yegor Borovikov, yegorb@intresys.com
Tania Wasser, taniaw@intresys.com
ISD Corporation (http://www.essentialpublishers.com)
Rob Beach, Ron.Beach@isd-corp.com
Holly Ramirez, Holly.Ramirez@isd-corp.com
John Coughlin, john.coughlin@isd-corp.com
Bob Gehringer, bob.gehringer@isd-corp.com
Robert Entrican, robert@entrican.com
Lexis-Nexis (http://www.lexisnexis.com)
Jonathan Gill, jonathan.gill@lexisnexis.com
Shane Durham, shane.durham@lexisnexis.com
One Legal, Inc. (http://www.onelegal.com)
Robert DeFilippis, rtd@onelegal.com
Matt Marshall, matt@mattmarshall.com
Bryan Barringer, bbarringer@onelegal.com
Bill Porterfield, billp@servicehub.com
Patrick Zanone, patrick.zanone@macroburst.com
U.S. Court Forms/American LegalNet (http://www.uscourtforms.com)
Erez Bustan, erez@uscourtforms.com
Kin Lee, kin@uscourtforms.com
Harry Thakkar, Hthakkar@uscourtforms.com