Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 7
COMMENT TO 2018 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been amended to conform to the general restyling of the civil rules. The provision addressing the statement of points and authorities has been amended to allow the statement of points and authorities to be included as part of the motion; there is no requirement that it be a separate document. Citation requirements for cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were eliminated as unnecessary and inconsistent with general practice.
As with prior versions of the rule, the amended rule does not include the requirement in Civil Rule 12 -I(a) that the moving party attempt to get the consent of the other party before filing a motion. This requirement was omitted from these rules because it is unlikely to be productive in most domestic relations cases-where one or both parties do not have lawyers and the conflict that brings them to court makes it unlikely that they will reach agreement about the relief sought in motions. Omission of this requirement does not affect the court's discretion to require lawyers or self-represented parties in any case to make diligent efforts to seek and obtain consent before filing all or specified types of motions. It is preferable for the parties or their lawyers to attempt to resolve an issue before filing a motion.
The requirement of submission of a proposed order was eliminated as unnecessary, particularly in cases where a party is not represented by counsel. The provisions of any administrative order requiring a proposed order, including in electronic form, still apply. The former provision for post-argument submission of a proposed order was also eliminated as unnecessary.
Provisions relating to service were eliminated because Rule 5 addresses service of motions. Subsection (b)(3) addressing the form of motions and other papers was also deleted because Rule 10 already includes similar provisions.
The provision addressing issuance of a Notice of Hearing and Order Directing Appearance for a contempt motion was narrowed and moved to Rule 4(b)(2)(B). The assigned judge may decide on a case-by-case basis whether a party should be directed to appear for a hearing on the motion.
Section (d), which requires the movant to notify the court when a motion is resolved, was modified to permit the movant to notify the court in any manner that is not inconsistent with instructions from the judge or magistrate judge.
COMMENT
Paragraph (a) of this Rule lists the pleadings which are permissible in a domestic relations action; use of demurrers, pleas, and exceptions for insufficiency of a pleading are no longer allowed. Where a party has requested child support in the complaint, rather than a motion, a Notice of Hearing and Order Directing Appearance will be issued and a hearing will be held on that issue within 45 days; no motion is necessary. D.C. Code § 46-206. Paragraph (b)(1)(A)'s requirement that motions be in writing except when made in open court or otherwise with leave of the Court is meant to leave open the possibility, at the Court's discretion, that motions be made by telecommunication. With regard to subparagraph (b)(1)(B), see Richardson v. Richardson , 276 A.2d 231 (D.C. App. 1971) , which makes personal service of motions for contempt unnecessary. However, if a party wishes to invoke the Court's power to issue a bench warrant for failure of a party to appear at a contempt or temporary child support hearing, the motion must be personally served with a Notice of Hearing and Order Directing Appearance. [Note that although D.C. Code § 46-206(b) defines personal service of process in a paternity case to include a combination of first-class and certified mail, such service is not a sufficient basis for issuance of a bench warrant for failure of the defendant to appear.] In addition, no hearing is under subparagraph (b)(1)(C), although the subparagraph does require that the motion to enlarge a decree of legal separation be served in the same manner as an original summons and complaint.