The plain text idea is brilliant and something I've been thinking about for a while. If they could do this, it would reduce storage and transmission costs of the courts various case management systems. I would increase the speed of the CMS systems. It would enable searchability and allow all readers and writers to render documents according to their preferences. Instead of scanned PDFs, they could have web forms with validation to make sure submissions are correct. This could be the future, if someone in law has some tech know how and vision.
Quick note: "On May 6, 2024, the California State Court accept our claim."
The court where you filed your lawsuit is a federal court, not a state court. Specifically, it's the U.S. District Court - Northern District of California, as noted on the complaint. Of course, it is located in the State of California.
I agree with selling to corporations. However, most big law lawyers will need a higher level of PDF functionality. At a quick glance, I notice that the tools can't manipulate bookmarks, which are required for electronic filing in most courts.
The person who represents Coca Cola may not be a licensed attorney, even if they work for the corporation. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 116.530, subd. (a) and (b).) Corporations typically send a non-attorney member of their legal staff to appear for them.
Note that you cite CCP 116.540, but subdivision (m) specifically states:
(m) Nothing in this section shall operate or be construed to authorize an attorney to participate in a small claims action except as expressly provided in Section 116.530.
Thus, the the general rule of CCP 116.530 applies, despite the language you quote in CCP 116.540, subd. (b).
The controlling language in CCP 116.530 is:
(a) Except as permitted by this section, no attorney may take part in the conduct or defense of a small claims action.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply if the attorney is appearing to maintain or defend an action in any of the following capacities:
(1) By or against himself or herself.
(2) By or against a partnership in which he or she is a general partner and in which all the partners are attorneys.
(3) By or against a professional corporation of which he or she is an officer or director and of which all other officers and directors are attorneys.
(I serve as a temporary judge in CA and have presided over many small claims matters so I deal with this problem regularly.)
This has been an issue in criminal prosecutions. Breath machine: You are over a .08 BAC. Defendant: No I wasn't. Let me see the source code. Courts and companies: NO! It's secret. [1]
Looks like the people who are grandfathered in are people who paid for web access. If you purchased the Android or iOS app (like me), you are not grandfathered in and do not get a free plus account.
The idea that encryption algorithms need to be well tested over time is why many security experts do not trust Telegram's encryption algorithm (MTProto).
The Federal Rules of Evidence permit a judge to question witnesses in addition to the parties. See Rule 614 linked below. And I think you mean plaintiff. A prosecutor generally refers to a lawyer representing the government in a criminal prosecution. This case is dispute between private parties.
https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vi/rule-614/
This project reminded me a proselint, which appears to be a similar style checker. Sadly, that project appears to have been inactive for at least three years.
The warrant requirement for content online, while good for privacy, absolutely hobbles criminal defendants. I pointed out this troubling issue years ago in a similar thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11073479.