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
 
Case Schema
Last Updated: 2008-11-13
 

Schema Namespace and Documentation
http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Filing/02/Case/01/
Schema Prefix
Case
Schema Repository Location
http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Filing/02/Case/01/Case.xsd
 
Table of Contents
1. Elements
 Internal
  1.1. Case
  1.2. New
  1.3. Existing
  1.4. Number
  1.5. ActionNumber
  1.6. Category
  1.7. Type
  1.8. Subtype
  1.9. Title
  1.10. InitiationReason
  1.11. NumberOfParties
  1.12. UnnamedParties
  1.13. AmountInControversy
  1.14. JurisdictionalAmount
  1.15. DisputeDate
  1.16. Year
  1.17. Venue
  1.18. VenueReason
  1.19. VenueZipCode
  1.20. ComplexLitigation
  1.21. ComplexLitigationFactors
  1.22. ComplexLitigationFactor
  1.23. OrganizationKey
  1.24. DataFile
 External
2. Simple Types
  2.1. AmountThresholds
  2.2. Years
  2.3. YesNo
  2.4. JurisdictionalAmounts
3. Imported Schemas
  3.1. Attributes
4. Change History
  4.1. 2003-02-18
  4.2. 2003-03-01
  4.3. 2003-06-14
  4.4. 2003-06-14
  4.5. 2003-06-14
  4.6. 2003-06-15
  4.7. 2003-07-23
  4.8. 2003-07-25
  4.9. 2003-07-27
  4.10. 2003-07-29
  4.11. 2004-02-29
  4.12. 2004-03-25
  4.13. 2004-04-26
  4.14. 2004-04-29
  4.15. 2004-08-02
  4.16. 2004-08-03
  4.17. 2004-08-05
  4.18. 2004-09-14
  4.19. 2005-06-25
  4.20. 2005-06-27
  4.21. 2005-12-03
  4.22. 2008-09-30
  4.23. 2008-11-13
5. Legal Notices
6. Authors and Contributors

1. Elements

1.1. Case:Case
Content Model: choice
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
New11
Existing11

[1]  Case is the intended root element of the schema. Case includes information unique to a court case. A court case, for example, usually includes a unique case number. As a result, there is a one-to-one-to-one relationship between a case, a case number, and other case information in this schema (e.g., there is only one case title, there is only one case type, there is only one case category).

[2]   Most elements in Case are important when a filing initiates a new case. Prior to case initiation, a Case:Number value does not exist. To process an initial filing, the clerk review software and the case management system require information sufficient to create a new case and to generate a case number in the case management system. The Case:New element requires sufficient information for a court to initiate a new case.

[3]  In subsequent filings, after the court has assigned a case number, the information in the Case element is less important (and therefore optional) because the information is already in the case management system. In subsequent filings, the Case:Number is the most important information because it is used to associate the filing with an existing case in the case management system. The filing application may include optional information to help identify the case in situations where the Case:Number is incorrect.

[4]  In many situations, information in a subsequent filing other than the case number may be ignored by the receiving application. The receiving application, however, may use certain information as additional verification that the case number in the filing matches the case number in the case management system. For example, inclusion of the Case:Title (which typically includes the names of the primary parties) is suggested and may be useful to ensure that the Case:Number is correct or to find the appropriate case if the Case:Number is incorrect for some reason.

[5]  The Case schema can also be used to represent an associated or legacy case. Associated case information may be required when a case is transferred, shared, appealed, or when litigation occurs based on a judgment in a past case.

1.2. Case:New
Content Model: sequence
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
Category11
Type01
Subtype01
Title11
InitiationReason01
NumberOfParties01
UnnamedParties01
AmountInControversy01
JurisdictionalAmount01
DisputeDate01
Year01
Venue01
VenueReason01
VenueZipCode01
ComplexLitigation01
ComplexLitigationFactors01
DataFile01

[6]  Case:New is a container element for information necessary to initiate a case in a case management system. If the Case:New element is present, then this means the filer intends to initiate a new case.

[7]  If the Case schema is used with Filing:AssociatedCase, then Case:New must not be used. Instead, Case:Existing must be used.

[8]  When the Case schema is used for an asynchronous confirmation, the Case:Existing element must be used (i.e., the Case:New element may not be used).

1.3. Case:Existing
Content Model: sequence
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
Number11
ActionNumber01
Category01
Type01
Subtype01
Title01
InitiationReason01
NumberOfParties01
UnnamedParties01
AmountInControversy01
JurisdictionalAmount01
DisputeDate01
Year01
Venue01
VenueReason01
VenueZipCode01
ComplexLitigation01
ComplexLitigationFactors01
OrganizationKey01
DataFile01

[9]  Case:Existing is a container element used primarily for the required Case:Number element. Other optional elements may be present. Filing applications should included optional elements if the information is available. If the Case:Existing element is present as a child of Filing:Case, then this means the filer intends to file into an existing case that has a case number equal to the value in Case:Number.

[10]  In an initial filing situation (i.e., a filing where Case:New is sent by the filing application) in the synchronous confirmation and in any asynchronous confirmations where the case has not been created in the case management system, the confirmation must use Case:New. After the case has been created, the confirmation (usually an asynchronous confirmation) must use Case:Existing to confirm that the new case request has been granted and the case exists. In the latter situation, Case:Number must also be populated.

[11]  If the Case:Existing element is present as a child of Filing:AssociatedCase, then this means an existing case, with a previously assigned case number exists in the court's case management system or in another court's case management system. The Filing:AssociatedCase\Case:Existing\Case:Number would therefore be an associated or predecessor case of the Filing:Case\Case:New\* when both of these elements are present in the same filing.

[12]  The optional elements under Case:Existing must be used when transmitting information about an associated or legacy case (e.g., the parent element is Filing:AssociatedCase).

[13]  When the Case schema is used for an asynchronous confirmation, the Case:Existing element must be used (i.e., the Case:New element may not be used).

1.4. Case:Number
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[14]  Case:Number is the case number or unique identifier that identifies the case into which documents are to be filed. A valid case number must be sent by the filing application when filing into an existing case. Case:Number is defined as a string because most court case numbers are not integers but instead strings of letters and numbers. For example, a Case:Number value could be CV-2005-00383.

[15]  A Case:Number must be sent in all confirmations, except confirmations to filings that would initiate a case where the case has not yet been created in the case management system.

1.5. Case:ActionNumber
Data Type: xsd:integer
go to top

[16]  Case:ActionNumber is unique identifier that identifies the action to which documents and parties in a case are associated. Action numbers are used in complex litigation when multiple complaints or causes of action are asserted after the original complaint. This occurs in a case when there are interpleaders, crossclaims, and counterclaims.

[17]  The processing rules for actions numbers are similar to case numbers. When a filer files a new case, the filer cannot include a case number or an action number, because the court has not yet created the case or assigned a case number. Once the court accepts the filing and creates a new case, it sends back a case number in Confirmation XML. When the court accepts the initial complaint, sending back an action number is unnecessary because there is no guarantee that additional complaints will be filed. As a result, there is no requirement to send back an action number in the Confirmation XML for the first complaint. The Case:ActionNumber value for the first complaint must always be assumed to be 1. If the court sends a Case:ActionNumber element in Confirmation XML for the first complaint, then the Case:ActionNumber element's value must be 1.

[18]  Subsequent to the filing of the first complaint, if the court determines that a new action should be created based on a new complaint (i.e., interpleader, crossclaim, counterclaim), then the court must send back Confirmation XML with a Case:ActionNumber that has a value equal to 2. This rule must be followed for each new action, incrementing the action number value by one for each new action.

[19]  In subsequent filings done in a case with more than one action, a filer must use both the Case:Number and the Case:ActionNumber to associate the filing and the documents and the parties in the filing with the appropriate case and action. Although it is an implementation issue, the court should not reject the filing if the filer does not include an action number or a correct action number. The filing should be deemed sufficient as long as the Case:Number value is correct. In the clerk review software, the court clerk should review the action number and ensure that the proper action number is assigned to the filing and the documents and parties in the filing.

[20]  In a subsequent filing that includes a Case:ActionNumber, the court may assume that any new parties included in the filing are associated with the action corresponding to the Case:ActionNumber value. The court is free to assign the parties to the case generally or to any other action, as it sees fit.

[21]  Just as it is only possible to file documents associated with one case number in a single Filing XML, it is likewise only possible to file documents associated with one action number in a single Filing XML.

[22]  Some case management systems do not distinguish actions. For these case management systems, filing applications will not receive actions numbers. Filing applications should, however, understand action numbers if received and should use actions numbers where appropriate when filing.

1.6. Case:Category
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[23]  Case:Category is the court case category associated with the case. This value should come from the Case Category table in Policy XML.

[24]  Case:Type, if present, must be a logical subcategory of the Case:Category value. The Case:Type value must further modify the Case:Category value.

1.7. Case:Type
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[25]   In a civil case, Case:Type is a value from question one on the California Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010). Acceptable values from the Coversheet are enumerated in the 2GEFS Civil Case Coversheet schema, but are not enumerated in this schema. The values should be enumerated in a Case Type table in Policy XML for civil cases. For juvenile, criminal, or other types of cases, appropriate Case:Type values should be enumerated in Policy XML in a Case Type table.

[26]  Case:Type, if present, must be a logical subcategory of the Case:Category value. The Case:Type value must further modify the Case:Category value.

1.8. Case:Subtype
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[27]  Case:Subtype is the court case subtype associated with the case. This value should come from the Case Subtype table in Policy XML.

[28]  Case:Subtype, if present, must be a logical subcategory of the Case:Type value. The Case:Subtype value must further modify the Case:Type value.

1.9. Case:Title
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[29]  Case:Title is the title or style of the case (sometimes called a caption or a case name). A typical rule for creating a case title is to create a string using the last name of the first plaintiff listed in the caption of the complaint, followed by " v. ", followed by the last name of the first defendant listed in the caption of the complaint. If either party is an organization (e.g., legal entity), then the name of the organization is used. For example, IBM, Inc. or State of California. This may vary depending on local policy or the type of case. Once created in the case management system, the Case:Title usually does not change unless a correction is made. As a result, the Case:Title must only to be sent to the case management system on case initiation.

[30]  Examples of Case:Title values include Jones v. Day and State of California v. Harrop. A common exception to the rule occurs in juvenile cases, where the case title often includes only the name of the juvenile. For example, In the Interest of Jason Wilson, a Child.

[31]  Although the Case:Title is only required on case initiation, the Case:Title may be sent in a subsequent filing. If the Case:Title is sent with a subsequent filing, it should be used to verify that the case title in the case management system matches the Case:Title in the Filing XML. This may be useful for determining or verifying the case if the Case:Number value is incorrect for some reason.

[32]  The receiving application is not required to accept the value sent by the filing application in Case:Title. The receiving application may generate its own case title.

[33]  The Case:Title should be sent back in the Confirmation XML. On case initiation, the Case:Title must be sent back in the Confirmation XML if the court changes the value sent by the filing application.

[34]  Case:Title is equivalent to Case Name on the California Civil Case Coversheet (form CM-010). In the Coversheet schema the equivalent element is Coversheet:Title. In the Calendar schema, the equivalent element is Calendar:CaseTitle.

1.10. Case:InitiationReason
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[35]  Case:InitiationReason is the reason a new case has been initiated.Case:InitiationReason tells, for example, that a new case is to be created as a result of a complaint, an appeal, or a transfer from another jurisdiction. This value should come from the Case Initiation Reason table in Policy XML.

1.11. Case:NumberOfParties
Data Type: xsd:integer
go to top

[36]  Case:NumberOfParties is the total number of parties named in the filing.

1.12. Case:UnnamedParties
Data Type: xsd:integer
go to top

[37]  Case:UnnamedParties is the number of parties that are associated with the case, but not named in the filing.

1.13. Case:AmountInControversy
Data Type: xsd:decimal
go to top
Attribute(s)typeusefixed/default
AmountThresholdAmountThresholdsrequiredNone

[38]  Case:AmountInControversy is the amount in controversy as stated in the complaint or similar pleading. The currency is assumed to be the currency of the court's jurisdiction.

[39]  The Case:AmountInControversy includes a required attribute AmountThreshold. The attribute AmountThreshold can have three values: (a) Exact, (b) Does Not Exceed, and (c) Exceeds. Exact means that the value in Case:AmountInControversy is the exact amount in controversy listed in the complaint or similar pleading. Does Not Exceed means that the value in Case:AmountInControversy is the highest amount in controversy possible based on the complaint or similar pleading. Exceeds means that the value in Case:AmountInControversy is the lowest amount in controversy possible based on the complaint or similar pleading.

[40]  For example, if the value in Case:AmountInControversy is $10,000 and the AmountThreshold value is Does Not Exceed, then the complaint asks for not more than $10,000 in damages. If the AmountThreshold value is Exceeds, then the complaint asks for more than $10,000 in damages.

1.14. Case:JurisdictionalAmount
Data Type: JurisdictionalAmounts
go to top

[41]  The Case:JurisdictionalAmount element is one of three ranges of values that determines the jurisdiction of certain California cases. The acceptable values are (a) $1 to $10,000 (b) $10,000 to $25,000 and (c) Over $25,000. This element is related to, but different than Case:AmountInControversy.

1.15. Case:DisputeDate
Data Type: xsd:date
go to top

[42]  Case:DisputeDate is the date on which the facts and circumstances of the litigation first occurred. If the exact date is unknown, the data may be approximated.

1.16. Case:Year
Data Type: Years
go to top

[43]  Case:Year is the four digit year in which the case is being filed.

1.17. Case:Venue
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[44]  Case:Venue is venue in which the case is being filed. This venue statement is made by the filer. This statement should be reviewed in the clerk review software. If the clerk changes this value, the changed value should be sent back to the filer in Confirmation XML.

1.18. Case:VenueReason
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[45]  Case:VenueReason is the reason the filer believes venue is proper in the jurisdiction in which the case is being filed.

1.19. Case:VenueZipCode
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[46]  Case:VenueZipCode is the zip code for the venue in which the case is being filed.

1.20. Case:ComplexLitigation
Data Type: YesNo
go to top

[47]  Case:ComplexLitigation is a Yes or No value for whether the case is considered complex under California Rules of Court, Rule 1800.

1.21. Case:ComplexLitigationFactors
Content Model: sequence
go to top
Child Element(s)minOccursmaxOccurs
ComplexLitigationFactor15

[48]  Case:ComplexLitigationFactors is a container element for one or more Filing:ComplexLitigationFactors elements. The factors can be found on the California Civil Case Coversheet (form CM-010).

1.22. Case:ComplexLitigationFactor
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[49]  Case:ComplexLitigationFactor is a reason for why the filer believes the case qualifies as complex litigation under California Rules of Court, Rule 1800. The factors can be found on the California Civil Case Coversheet (form CM-010).

1.23. Case:OrganizationKey
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top

[50]  Case:OrganizationKey is a unique identifier for an organization, for example, a court or other tribunal. Case:OrganizationKey appears only under Case:Existing. It must be used when Filing:AssociatedCase is a parent of Case:Existing and Case:Number is from a court other than the court into which the filing is transmitted. When Case:OrganizationKey is used, it means that the existing, associated or legacy case number (i.e., Case:Existing\Case:Number) is from a different court or tribunal.

1.24. Case:DataFile
Content Model: any
go to top

[51]  The Case:DataFile element is used to add case type specific Plug-In XML. If a case category or case type requires additional data, not defined in this Case schema, then applications must use the Case:DataFile element to specify additional case data. For example, if a Small Claims case required small claims specific data, then a Plug-In schema should be defined for small claims data and small claims data conforming to the schema should be sent in the Case:DataFile element.

[52]  Any well-formed XML can be put in the Case:DateFile. However, applications must validate the XML if a schema exists for the XML.

2. Simple Types

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

Value
Exact
Does Not Exceed
Exceeds
2.2. Years
Data Type: xsd:string
maxLength: 4
minLength: 4
go to top
2.3. YesNo
Data Type: xsd:string
go to top
Enumeration(s)

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

Value
$1 to $10,000
$10,000 to $25,000
Over $25,000

3. Imported Schemas

3.1. Attributes
go to top
Namespace
  http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/BuildingBlocks/Attributes/03/
  

4. Change History

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

Added structured copyright and update history.

4.2. 2003-03-01
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/Filing/02/Case/01/
go to top

Added NumberOfParties, UnnamedParties and AmountInControversy elements. Add Type element.

4.3. 2003-06-14
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/Filing/Test01/Case/01/
go to top

Copied. Eliminated UnnamedPartiesBegin and End elements.

4.4. 2003-06-14
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/Filing/Tests/Filing/Test01/Case/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.5. 2003-06-14
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/Filing/Tests/Filing/Test02/Case/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.6. 2003-06-15
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Normalized using xmlLegal Normalizer 0.0.9.

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

Copied. Changed "FilingType" to "Type". Added new "New" and "Existing" elements. Changed Case content model to choice of New and Existing. Eliminated old New element. Eliminated YesNo simpleType used on old New element. Changed required/optional qualities of elements to reflect required/optional information for a new/existing case.

4.8. 2003-07-25
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Changed Caption element to Title element to be consistent with new Calendar schema.

4.9. 2003-07-27
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Normalized using xmlLegal Normalizer 0.0.9.

4.10. 2003-07-29
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Filing/Test02/Case/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.11. 2004-02-29
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Added introductory text to Case element. Added documentation to New and Existing elements. Added clarification to Title element.

4.12. 2004-03-25
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Filing/Test03/Case/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.13. 2004-04-26
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Deleted Case:Number from Case:New. Added documentation explaining how to use Case schema if it is a legacy case. Added Case:Division. Changed Case:Type to Case:InitiationReason. Added OrganizationKey element and documentation. Changed Case:Year base type to Years simpleType so that it would be a four character string. Added Case:Venue, Case:VenueReason, Case:VenueZipCode and documentation. Added AmountThreshold attribute to AmountInControversy and AmountThresholds simpleType with enumerations Exact, Does Not Exceed, and Exceeds.

4.14. 2004-04-29
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Normalized using xmlLegal Normalizer 0.1.0.

4.15. 2004-08-02
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Filing/Test04/Case/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.16. 2004-08-03
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Added Case:DisputeDate, Added Case:ComplexLitigation (Yes/No), Added Case:ComplexLitigationFactors, Added Case:ComplexLitigationFactor, and Added YesNo simpleType. Added Case:ActionNumber.

4.17. 2004-08-05
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Normalized using xmlLegal Normalizer 0.1.0.

4.18. 2004-09-14
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Filing/Test05/Case/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.19. 2005-06-25
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Filing/01/Case/01/
go to top

Copied. Changed Attributes to 03 version. Added Case:Type element and made Case:Category optional. Fixed ComplexLitigationFactors. Changed AmountInControversy from xsd:string to xsd:integer. Made AmountThreshhold a required attribute.

4.20. 2005-06-27
Editor: Winchel Vincent
go to top

Edited documentation to reflect schema changes.

4.21. 2005-12-03
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Filing/Test06/Case/01/
go to top

Copied.

4.22. 2008-09-30
Editor: Schema Generator
go to top

Normalized using xmlSchemaGenerator Normalizer 0.1.5.

4.23. 2008-11-13
Editor: Winchel Vincent
Copied From: http://www.xmllegal.org/Schema/Court/US/California/2GEFS/Filing/Test07/Case/01/
go to top

Copied. Added Case:New/Case:JurisdictionalAmount. Changed Case:AmountInControversy to xsd:decimal. Changed Case:Category to required (as a replacement for Case:Division). Added Case:Subtype. Added Case:DataFile.

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