[Plaintiff] persistently misstates the central issue in the case by insisting, here and in related appeals, that the question presented is whether a defendant charged with trade secret misappropriation “may escape liability” by establishing that it “does not comprehend the specific information comprising the trade secrets.” This is not an issue, let alone the chief issue, in these matters. The posited question may be answered in the negative-as indeed it must-without resolving any aspect of this case. It is a smokescreen, a red herring, a straw man.

If you are an iPhone-using lawyer, you really should subscribe to the iPhoneJD blog, where New Orleans attorney Jeff Richardson keeps you updated not only on specific legal uses for the iPhone, but on all things iPhone.

Yesterday, he reviewed Fastcase, an iPhone app for legal research, and the opening paragraph could hardly have been more glowing:

I will start this review with what probably belongs in my conclusion:  Every single lawyer using an iPhone should download the Fastcase app.  Moreover, the availability of the free Fastcase app is a compelling reason for any attorney not using an iPhone to purchase one today.  This app is that useful.

The rest of his review is very thorough.

The application itself is free, but the two subscription plans offered have an annual cost of  $700 and $1000. While that’s a heck of a lot less expensive than commercial services like Westlaw and Lexis, Fastcase will hardly replace either. It will be most useful for quick lookups on the go.

A lucky few won’t have to conduct any cost-benefit analysis. Seventeen bar associations (so far) offer Fastcase to their members free. That includes several statewide bar associations. Unfortunately, California is not among them, but a couple of Ninth Circuit states are: Arizona, Nevada and Oregon.

UPDATE (2/2/10): On second thought, this application might be good for a lot more than just the occasional quick lookup. On an iPad, it will be a lot more readable. Hmmm, up until know, I was pretty sure I wasn’t going to buy an iPad.

(Cross-posted at The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals.)

Well, not quite. Such cases can be well worth finding because, in the absence of published cases, they can still be quite helpful in formulating argument and working logically through the issues. It is such influence in the absence of publication that leads presiding justice Kline, dissenting in People v. Moret, case no. A123591 (1st Dist. Dec. 28, 2009. modified on denial of rehearing Jan. 22, 2010), to cite the existence of an “underground body of law” as his principle justification for publication of Moret:

[Health and Safety Code section 11362.795] has, however, been interpreted and applied in a significant number of unpublished and therefore noncitable opinions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115.) Because published opinions construing the statute do not exist, and the unpublished opinions that do are easily obtained by interested lawyers and judges, the unpublished opinions may influence the strategy of counsel and the decisions of trial and perhaps even appellate courts. The existence for a long period of time of an underground body of law on the meaning of [Health and Safety Code] section 11362.795 (to which some members of this panel have admittedly contributed) is injudicious.

The cited code section concerns use of medical marijuana. I can’t be the only one who finds it a little ironic that the body of case law on it would be underground.

The Supreme Court denied review today in Burlage v. Superior Court, leaving intact the decision that, by speculation of some (including yours truly), will increase the number of legal challenges to arbitration decisions. I won’t go so far as to say that it will “open the floodgates,” but it certainly opens an avenue to judicial review that many would not have tried before the decision was published.

Expect to see many challenges that assert, though not in so many words, that the legal error that occurred in their case is grounds for vacating an award if the error led the arbitrator to exclude evidence. The challenge for these litigants will be to squeeze the history of their arbitration proceedings into the confines of Burlage, and its interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5). There will be plenty of fights over what those confines are.

The section headed “Uncertainty and a Little History” at the outset of Justice Gilbert’s opinion in Burlage certainly seemed to tee the case up for Supreme Court review:

We look to legal precedent in deciding cases. We believe the law is predictable and provides litigants and counsel a reasonable degree of certainty. True, but not always.

In 1991, we wrote what we thought was a routine arbitration opinion. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (Apr. 2, 1991, B048936) [nonpub. opn.].) We relied on decades of precedent in our unpublished decision to affirm the arbitration award because no error appeared on the face of the award. In dicta, we noted that had the error appeared on the face of the award and created substantial prejudice, we would have reversed.

To our surprise, our Supreme Court granted review. Our holding was affirmed, but our dicta “reversed.” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1.) Oh well, nobody’s perfect. Moncharsh held that judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision regarding questions of fact or law is extremely limited. Thus, even though an error of law appears on the face of an arbitration award and causes substantial injustice, it is not subject to judicial review in the absence of a limiting clause or as provided by statute. (Id. at p. 25.)

For the next decade, courts have wrestled with the question of when and under what circumstances judicial review of an arbitration award is proper.

Though we have no Supreme Court review this time, we’re about to witness another round of wrestling. As more and more courts consider the question, significant judicial discord may develop, and Justices Baxter and Corrigan — the two justices who were in favor of review — might sway their colleagues to grant review in a similar case.

Based on survey responses from the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, 54 superior courts, and 275 justice system partners, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) recommends continuing the one-day-per-month judicial branch closures through June 2010, as directed at the July 29, 2009, Judicial Council meeting. The closures provide a viable method in the short term to absorb the significant budget reductions imposed on the branch, although they are far from a perfect tool and have unquestionably affected court operations and the smooth and effective delivery of justice. The AOC further recommends that the council reaffirm its commitment to keep courts open and accessible to the public and to advocate for sufficient resources to avoid the need for court closures in fiscal year 2010–2011 and direct the Administrative Director of the Courts, in consultation with branch leaders to develop recommendations and guidelines for limited closures for 2010– 2011 should sufficient resources not be provided.

The agenda references this 28-page report (PDF) from the AOC. The meeting will be audiocast live at this link.

No more paper: just electronic journals with links to sources. That’s what’s ahead. All this current, Bluebook-inspired preoccupation with small caps and spacing initials and the like will go the way of the mastodon. One of these days, we’ll have just URLs. They’ll have to be correct, or they won’t work. And they’ll have to last.

If you’re an academic writer, you should check out the article. Here’s the abstract at SSRN, where you can access the complete article after signing up for a free account:

For decades, legal footnotes have been the deserving target of both ample criticism and self-mockery. Apart from their complaints as to footnotes’ mere existence, most critics draw a bead on the ballooning of footnote content. Some journal editors, aspiring to respond to this sound theme, hopefully inform their authors of a preference for “light footnoting.” But where does an author begin to trim, and what editor has the audacity to slash what the author (or her research assistant) has so laboriously compiled below the line? Changing our footnote habits is about benefits and costs. To gain the former, we must ante up. If criticism began the round of bidding, this article modestly raises the stakes, suggesting a rule of reason that might govern the author’s, the editor’s, and the reader’s expectations for footnotes. A gamble, perhaps, but one that might be worth taking.

To hold such a waiver enforceable “would deprive a defendant of the ‘opportunity to assert his Sixth Amendment right to counsel where he had accepted the waiver in reliance on delinquent representation.’ ” [Citation.]

We agree with the federal authorities and find justice dictates that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the making of the waiver agreement cannot be barred by the agreement that is the product of the alleged ineffectiveness.

Paul Peterson filed a petition to appoint a guardian to handle financial affairs for the octuplets. (Peterson asserted that his non-profit organization wanted to ensure that financial compensation received from photos or video of the octuplets was preserved for their majority, which explains why no guardianship was sought for the remaining children.) Suleman moved to dismiss, and petitioned for a writ of mandate after the trial court denied her motion. As unsympathetic a person as Suleman may have been in the press, Peterson looks pretty bad, too:

This is an unprecedented, meritless effort by a stranger to a family to seek appointment of a guardian of the estates of the minor children. The petition‟s allegations are insufficient to infringe on a parent‟s civil rights or to rebut the presumption under California law that a parent is competent to manage the finances of his or her children. There is nothing in the petition that shows that the best interests of the children in the management of their finances are not being served by Suleman.

I always liked the joke “It’s on the internet, so it must be true!” Peterson learns that a court petition is not the time to try to take that whimsical expression seriously:

What information do we have before us? Petersen is not a relative under section 1510, subdivision (a). Petersen has never met and never had any contact with Suleman, her children, or any member of her family. All of the information presented in the petition for appointment of a guardian has come from television or the Internet. Petersen has provided no documentary evidence (much less admissible evidence) that raises a reasonable inference of wrongdoing. The information provided can be summed up as follows: Suleman and her children have appeared on television and the Internet, presumably in exchange for money. No evidence of financial mismanagement on the part of Suleman is offered. Petersen admits he does not know whether Suleman has taken the appropriate steps to ensure that 15 percent of each child‟s portion of any earnings has been placed into a [statutorily mandated] Coogan Trust Account.

(My emphasis, footnote omitted.) Not only does Suleman get the guardianship petition dismissed, she also succeeds in stopping an investigation ordered by the trial court into her family’s finances.

The average person following this on the news probably wrote off Suleman’s chances of prevailing. Lawyers not paying close attention may also have rolled their eyes, in light of the overwhelming odds against having a writ petition heard on the merits, let alone winning. However, Suleman presented a statutory interpretation issue of first impression of great importance — who has standing as “another person on behalf of the minor” under Probate Code section 1510, subdivision (a) to bring a guardianship petition — that not only caught the court’s eye, but actually resulted in a win.

I still have lots of touch-up work to do, but I decided it was better to reopen the blog to access today as scheduled rather than spend another day or two tinkering without substantive updates. So, please bear with me as I clean up around here over the coming weeks.

Le is a great study in why it is important to think carefully about the appropriate standard of review. Respondents, who had prevailed against a cross-complaint against them, probably thought they had this case in the bag, but because the standard of review was not what they thought it was, judgment on the cross-complaint was reversed.

The Les, a married couple, together owned 50% of the stock in a pharmacy corporation; Pham owned the other 50%. The bylaws obligated the Les to give notice of any proposed sale of their shares to a third party and gave Pham a right of first refusal, but failed to specify a time in which to exercise it. The bylaws also dictated that any sale below the price in the notice was void.

The Les sold their shares to third parties, the Hoangs. Pham, contending the sale was in violation of her right of first refusal and was void because the sale price was below that provided in the Les’ notice, refused to recognize Paul Hoang as a shareholder and would not grant him access to the corporate records or seat him as a director. Paul Hoang did not file a change of ownership form with the California Board of Pharmacy. As a result, the board closed the pharmacy for approximately three month starting in March 2007 and kept it on probation through the end of that year.

The Les and Hoangs sued Pham, contending the sale was valid and Pham’s refusal to give them access to the corporate records was wrongful, that Pham had failed to file proper forms with the state, and that she had converted corporate funds to her own use. Pham cross-claimed, alleging breach of fiduciary duty against the Les and fraud against Paul Haong (based on holding himself out as a shareholder). The complaint and cross-complaint were both alleged derivatively on behalf of the corporation as well.

The case was tried to the court, and the court of appeal summarized the result thus:

After a bench trial, Pham prevailed on the Les’ and Hoangs’ complaint, while the Les and Hoangs prevailed on Pham’s cross-complaint. That is, the court, in its statement of decision, ruled that the Les‟ attempted transfer of shares to the Hoangs was null and void because it did not comply with the corporate bylaws. It was obvious, after all, that the Les had attempted to sell the shares to the Hoangs for a better price ($24,000 as distinct from $70,000) and on better terms (installments rather than cash) than had been offered Pham in the notice of intent to sell.

As to Pham’s (and the corporation’s) cross-complaint against the Les for breach of fiduciary duty, the statement of decision concluded that they had “failed to carry their burden of proof.” The trial judge wrote: “Generally speaking, at trial, little evidence was adduced in support of the cross-complaint.” She also wrote, however, that Pham “did not have an adequate opportunity to exercise her right of first refusal” given that Dieu-Hoa Le had “unilaterally demanded that the written offer be made within 10 days.”

Read that carefully. That those facts are undisputed is important.

It’s tough to summarize the point regarding the standard of review any more concisely than the court has already done, so I’ll simply provide the following (and quite long) excerpt. As you read it, I think the lesson will become clear: don’t jump to conclusions on the standard of review.

The obvious starting point is that, since Pham and the corporation are challenging a judgment after a court trial, they initially face the formidable substantial evidence standard of review.

The substantial evidence standard has two components, and both work generally against appellants: First, all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the prevailing party; second, all reasonable inferences from the evidence (all conflicts already having been properly resolved) must be drawn in favor of the prevailing party. (See Eisenberg, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group (2009) ¶¶ 8:38, 8:60, pp. 8-18, 8-8-26.)

We should note, then, that Pham and the corporation are necessarily in the position of saying that the evidence, despite all the resolution of conflicts and having all reasonable inferences drawn against them, nevertheless compels a judgment in their favor, on the two issues they have raised in this appeal: The Les’ fiduciary duty and Paul Hoang’s alleged fraud. Not surprisingly, the brief filed on behalf of the Les and Hoang lavishes attention on the substantial evidence rule. The Les and Hoang are most certainly correct that if we find any substantial evidence obviating either (a) any fraud on Hoang’s part or (b) the existence of a fiduciary duty, or the subsequent breach of a fiduciary duty if there is one, we must affirm the judgment.

However, if one digs a little deeper — for example, by continuing to read the remainder of the respondent’s brief — it turns out that the substantial evidence rule is actually irrelevant in the context of the issue of whether the Les’ owed a fiduciary duty as shareholders to Pham, and whether any such duty was breached. There is no conflict as to the facts of ownership of the corporation: 50-50. There is no conflict in the evidence regarding the sale (or, better, attempted sale) of the Les’ half of the corporation to the Hoangs. And there is no conflict in the evidence as regards the consequences of that attempted sale, namely a cease and desist order from the California State Board of Pharmacy closing the business for about three months beginning in March 2007.

Thus, the Les’ actual argument on the fiduciary duty issue presented in their brief turns out not to be a factual one at all (e.g., the Les don’t say: “there was evidence that we didn’t really own any shares at all, or that we offered our shares to Pham at the same price and terms as we offered to the Hoangs”), but a legal one: The Les assert that by virtue of the undisputed fact that they were 50-percent shareholders in the corporation — that is, were not majority stockholders — they had no fiduciary duties to the corporation or to the other 50-percent shareholder. Of course, when the facts are undisputed and the question on appeal is wholly a legal issue, the proper standard of review is independent review. (E.g., People v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 7 (Decker) [because dismissal of attempted murder charges “was based on undisputed facts,” it constituted “a legal conclusion subject to independent review on appeal”].)The trial court‟s comments in its statement of decision, then, that (1) “at trial, little evidence was adduced in support of the cross-complaint” and (2) Pham and the corporation had “failed to carry their burden of proof,” while understandable, miss the mark in analyzing the problem of whether the Les had a fiduciary duty toward Pham as regards the bylaws‟ right-of-first-refusal provision.

The comments were quite understandable if one thinks about how the trial judge experienced the unfolding of the trial. Precisely because the relevant facts involving the attempted sale were undisputed, most of them were presented in the context of the plaintiffs’ (the Les and Hoang) case in chief seeking to validate the sale from the Les to Hoang. The trial was ninety percent over, in terms of counting pages in the reporter’s transcript, when the Les and Hoang rested their case. That case in chief included, for example, calling Pham herself as an hostile witness, and the only witness that Pham and the corporation called after the plaintiffs had rested was the state Board of Pharmacy inspector, who explained why the corporation had had to close down for about three months in 2007. So we can understand that it might not have seemed like Pham and the corporation were producing much evidence on their cross-complaint at trial. Most of the relevant (and undisputed) facts bearing on the legal question of whether the Les had a fiduciary duty and, if so, violated it, had been brought out in the plaintiffs’ case in chief. But just because the undisputed evidence favoring the cross-complaint also happened to come out on the plaintiffs’ case in chief does not mean it was not available to support the cross-complaint.

I don’t find anything surprising about the court’s analysis. But I’m not so ready to call the trial judge’s comments “understandable if one thinks about  the way the trial judge experienced the unfolding of the trial.” Were there no closing arguments or briefs? What about input from the parties regarding the statement of decision? (See Code of Civil Procedure section 632.)

The uncontradicted nature of the evidence seems pretty clear to me. Then again, hindsight is 20/20, isn’t it?

The Ninth Circuit

Just before Christmas, I announced that this blog would be spinning off a new blog, The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals, with the start of the new year. I’m pleased to announce that The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals is now in session. This is the follow-up post I promised about how I reached the decision to split this blog and my plans for managing both of them.

First, an explanation as to why I am resuming blogging on a more regular basis. As regular readers recall, my blogging frequency dropped off dramatically in 2009. I posted from time to time, but not with the regularity and enthusiasm with which

I started this blog in spring of 2007. (Then again, I’m not sure any solo blogger could have kept up that pace for long.)

A funny thing happened while I was away from this blog.

Traffic doubled. People called and hired me after finding me through the blog. And, while I was worried that the drop off in my blogging would eventually catch up to me, and that I would be passed by other California appellate bloggers, it turns out many of them — the practicing attorneys, anyway — blogged even less than I did!

Now, all of that might suggest the whimsical view that infrequent blogging is the key to success! But I don’t look at it that way. I see the past year as evidence that renewed and consistent blogging will bring even more traffic and help reestablish my blogging niche. That way, I won’t be embarrassed at the state of the blog the next time I get mentioned at Lexblog.

Why spin off The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals?

There was one thing that was missing, or at least very infrequent, about the traffic generated by this blog: inquiries about

Ninth Circuit appeals. Virtually all my inquiries were about California state court appeals. When I did get an out-of-state inquiry, it was often for an appeal in some state court where I am not admitted to practice, or an appeal in another federal circuit.

That made me think that federal subject matter posted on this blog is hidden from the typical internet researcher. Who is going to look for information about federal appeals on a blog called The Calfornia Blog of Appeal, even if it shows up in their search results?

The new blog is an effort to reach those readers. It seems to me that someone with a federal case in Arizona who turns up a result on The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals is far more likely to look at it than at the identical content on The California Blog of Appeal, especially if that someone is a lawyer familiar with the terminology. (A fair number of my inquiries come from lawyers rather than their clients.) But even a party with little knowledge of the court system is likely to have learned from his trial lawyer that his appeal is to the Ninth Circuit.

I’ve taken steps (amateur ones) to ”SEO” the new blog. That’s “search engine optimization” for you non-techies. And its designed to draw ninth circuit traffic like flies. I hope.

What should regular readers expect here?

The state-federal division between the blogs isn’t as simple as it sounds. You lawyers out there can think of it as the Erie

doctrine for blogs. The question I face is similar to that faced by the Erie court both in the nature of the split and the difficulty of answering the question: when does a post belong on the state court blog The California Blog of Appeal and when does it belong on the federal court blog The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals?

Well, the easy answer is that posts about federal cases go on  The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals and those about California state court cases go on The California Blog of Appeal. The problem is, that is the easy answer, not necessarily a good one. Too many posts transcend jurisdiction.

For starters, what about cases that affect the law in both court systems? For example, a case where the Ninth Circuit certifies a question to the California Supreme Court? Or a United States Supreme Court case regarding constitutional criminal procedure that governs all criminal cases, state or federal?

In addition, I’ve blogged about many things besides developing case law. Legal humor, legal technology, legal education , and even law practice and marketing are occasional topics here. I blog about legal writing and legal research quite a bit. I even blog about blogging and note the occasional oddity.

So, I’ve been pondering for several weeks how to divide these seemingly transcendant posts between the blogs, and I’ve come up with a hard and fast rule: I’m going to wing it. But I’m going to wing it with an eye towards taking care of my regular readers. I may cross-post some posts at both blogs. I may write a summary on one blog that links to the full post on the other. I ma

y try to put a slightly different spin on the same post at the respective blogs. The lighter and more personal posts are likely to be posted here. Until I establish some kind of rhythm, my principle concern will be not to make the transition too jarring for my regular visitors. My apologies in advance for any inconvenience.

There is, however, one way to make sure you don’t miss anything. Subscribe to both RSS feeds! (State and Federal.)

So, go read my introductory post at The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals, poke around a bit, and feel free to offer any suggestions for improvement.

Finally, within the next week or so I will be converting The California Blog of Appeal to a new theme that complements the theme at The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals and will allow me to implement better search engine optimization. My target date for the new theme is Monday, January 11.  You may find this blog down occasionally until you see it with the new theme

.

Defendant contends the Legislature enacted misdemeanor statutes, which more specifically defined the felony offense for which she was convicted in count 1, subsequent to the latter’s enactment; thus, she asserts her felony conviction is preempted and must be reversed.

Specifically, the defendant contended that her conviction for procuring or offering false information for filing in a pubic office (Pen. Code, § 115, subd. (a)), with which she was charged for submitting a false stolen vehicle report to the California Highway Patrol, was preempted by Vehicle Code section 20 (false statement or knowing concealment of any material fact in any document filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of the California Highway Patrol) and Vehicle Code section 10501 (filing of false or fraudulent report of theft of a vehicle with any law enforcement agency with intent to deceive). At first glance, it looks like a pretty good argument, but it doesn’t withstand the preemption test.

“The preemption doctrine provides that a prosecution under a general criminal statute with a greater punishment is prohibited if the Legislature enacted a specific statute covering the same conduct and intended that the specific statute would apply exclusively to the charged conduct. [Citations.] To determine the applicability of this doctrine in a particular case, the courts have developed two alternative tests. Under these tests, a prosecution under the general statute is prohibited if: (1) “each element of the general statute corresponds to an element on the face of the [specific] statute‟; or (2) “it appears from the statutory context that a violation of the [specific] statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the general statute.‟ [Citations.]” (People v. Jones (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 455, 463.)

“Consideration must be given to the entire context surrounding the “special‟ statute to determine the true overlap of the statutes and to ascertain the intent of the Legislature.” (People v. Jenkins (1980) 28 Cal.3d 494, 503.) “The fact that the Legislature has enacted a specific statute covering much the same ground as a more general law is a powerful indication that the Legislature intended the specific provision alone to apply. Indeed, in most instances, an overlap of provisions is determinative of the issue of legislative intent and „requires us to give effect to the special provision alone in the face of the dual applicability of the general provision . . . and the special provision. . . .‟ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 505-506.)

What’s interesting about the court’s reasoning in concluding that the Penal Code provision is not preempted is that the elements that differentiate the Vehicle Code misdemeanor provisions from the Penal Code felony provision (and thus prevent preemption) arguably make the misdemeanors harder to prove and more serious than the felony offense. Both of the Vehicle Code provisions require filing a document, whereas the Penal Code provision only requires that the defendant “procure” or “offer” it. The nature of the falsehood in the misdemeanor statutes also seems more serious and harder to prove than the falsehood in the Penal Code provision. Vehicle Code section 20 requires the false statement to be material, and Vehicle Code section 10501 requires that the false statement be made with intent to deceive; yet, neither materiality nor intent to deceive is an element of Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a).

The answer to this curious state of affairs appears to be the in the court’s exlpanation of the purpose of Penal Code section 115:

As the People note, Vehicle Code section 10501’s lack of a requirement that the false report, if genuine, could have been legally filed provides a legally decisive distinction reflecting the Legislature‟s intent, pursuant to Penal Code section 115, to protect recordation of documents in public institutions and the public’s reliance upon them, a concern not apparent in Vehicle Code section 10501. Additionally, as noted above in the discussion of Vehicle Code section 20, Penal Code section 115’s prohibition on knowingly procuring or offering false instruments to be filed is legally distinct from Vehicle Code section 10501’s prohibition on making false statements or actually filing a false report of vehicle theft. This is because an offense under Penal Code section 115 is more egregious because it inherently induces the conduct and reliance of others in its commission.

***

Similarly, a violation of Vehicle Code section 10501 will not necessarily, or even commonly, result in a violation of Penal Code section 115 because the former is concerned with the filing of the false or fraudulent report by the reporter himself or herself; thus, it lacks the more morally turpitudinous act of inducing behavior by another.

The court seems to be saying that the purpose of Penal Code section 115 — to prevent reliance by the public on falsified instruments – is served by imposing criminal liability just for getting a false document even close to filing, regardless of intent. In other words, people need to be darn careful about what they offer for filing to public agencies.

I get that, in the abstract. And, I agree that the technical test for preemption is not met in the case. It seems odd, however, that the practical result of applying the preemption test should lead to this result. The fact of the matter is that the defendant filed a false report of vehicle theft with the highway patrol, which the legislature deemed less punishable than the conduct proscribed by the more general felony statute. What purpose does Vehicle Code section 10501 serve if not to make less culpable those persons who file a particular false document that is not likely to be relied upon by the public?

One is more likely to see it in a criminal appeal than in a civil appeal, especially when the criminal appeal involves errors in sentencing, as in People v. Frausto, case no. B212054 (2d Dist. Dec. 28, 2009), where the attorney general agreed that the trial court erred in imposing three cumulative 5-year sentencing enhancements under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) for each of three prior serious felony convictions tried in a single proceeding and that the defendant had been awarded only 464 of the 466 days of presentence custody credits to which he was entitled. (Not that it did the defendant much good. The 2 extra days of presentence custody credits — 2 days — were applied against  a sentence of 214 years to life. Since the three 5-year enhancements were added consecutively to that sentence, the 10-year reduction in enhancements was likewise not much comfort to the defendant.)

The first (and, so far, only) time I got a brief from the attorney general agreeing with my position, I was stunned. I noticed it when I skimmed through the headings of the respondent’s brief, and thought to myself, “Must be a typo. They left out the word ‘not.’” Even when I read the argument under the heading, I had to read it three times just to make sure that I was reading it correctly!

And just how, you might be wondering, is a blog with a single blogger going to split up?

Since this blog’s inception, I have covered case law and issues in the Ninth Circuit as well as California state court. Based on responses to the blog, however, it appears few people arrive by looking for federal information. Am I missing out on readers — and maybe even business — by having coverage of federal issues buried in a blog called The California Blog of Appeal?

Well, I’m going to try to find out. Starting January 1, 2010, your humble blogger is going to be pulling double blog duty, covering case law and issues from California state court here and covering case law and federal issues in the Ninth Circuit at The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals. The new blog is still under construction, but if you care to bookmark it prior to the grand opening, click here.

I’ll have a lot more to say on January 1 about how I reached the decision to split the blog, how I intend to avoid duplicate posts on both blogs on subjects applicable to both (legal writing, e.g.), and how I intend to minimize inconvenience for my regular readers who wish to follow both blogs.

UPDATE (12/29/09): The split may be delayed until January 4. I’m running into technical difficulties with the design of the new blog. Nobody is going to be reading law blogs on New Year’s Day anyway . . . are they?

In Mohawk, the district court ordered Mohawk to turn over documents Mohawk asserted were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The collateral-order doctrine allows for immediate appeals if: (1) the particular ruling conclusively determines the disputed question; (2) resolves an important issue separate from the merits of the action; and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Some circuits allow for immediate appeals under the collateral-order doctrine to review whether an order violates the attorney-client privilege. The Supreme Court held in Mohawk that orders requiring disclosure of arguably privileged material will have to wait for a final judgment because they are reviewable after judgment, however imperfectly. Justice Sotomayor noted that parties in such situations can defy disclosure orders and suffer sanctions, which will then be reviewable, or subject themselves to contempt of court, thereby also obtaining review.

Westfall urges the Colorado state courts not to adopt the rule, to which I say . . . be glad you don’t practice in California, Steve! In California state courts, discovery rulings are generally not appealable, even where the disclosure of privileged information would result. In such a situation, the party seeking review must do so by petitioning for a discretionary writ, and hope that the issue presented and the gravity of the disclosure are enough for the court of appeal to exercise its discretion to hear the petition on the merits.

Mohawk Industries resolves a circuit split in which the Ninth Circuit was in the minority camp that allowed appeal from such rulings. (In re Napster, Inc. Litigation (9th Cir. 2007) 479 F.3d 1978.) I’ll have more on the federal angle in an update.

I’m a little late on this . . . OK, I’m a lot late. Last month, Google announced a searchable database of case law and legal journals on Google Scholar:

Starting today, we’re enabling people everywhere to find and read full text legal opinions from U.S. federal and state district, appellate and supreme courts using Google Scholar. You can find these opinions by searching for cases (like Planned Parenthood v. Casey), or by topics (like desegregation) or other queries that you are interested in. For example, go to Google Scholar, click on the “Legal opinions and journals” radio button, and try the query separate but equal. Your search results will include links to cases familiar to many of us in the U.S. such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, which explore the acceptablity [sic] of “separate but equal” facilities for citizens at two different points in the history of the U.S. But your results will also include opinions from cases that you might be less familiar with, but which have played an important role.

I haven’t had time to test it out thoroughly, but in just a few minutes I was able to find my way around pretty well, and there appear to be quite a few search options. Looking up a case by its citation is much like the paid services: just type the citation in the search box at Google Scholar. There are options on the advanced search page to limit searches by subject matter, to search only federal cases, and to search any mix of individual states. Law journals can be searched by author, journal, date range, and any combination thereof. (Don’t worry if you don’t have the citation format for the law journal handy; identifying it by full name appears to work just fine.) Google provides a page of advanced search tips.

Cases cited in documents are linked for ready access with a click, just like the paid services. Of course, authorities not archived in Google Scholar are not linked, and the cases do not have the headnotes that appear in Westlaw or Lexis cases, and the date range of cases available so far is limited. For details, check out the “About” page for Google Scholar and follow the links in the left margin.

Unlike the free searching on Findlaw, one need not create an account to use the service. That’s nice.

Overall, this is a worthwhile resource, and perhaps especially for law bloggers who want to provide links to case law that won’t expire (like those on the California court websites do) and are is accessible to all readers. I’m going to take a serious look at using it for links on this blog.

UPDATE (12/21/09): I had time to play around with this a little more and wanted to alert readers that while the Google Scholar site does not require any form of membership, getting full access to journal articles in the results may require you to open an account at the site actually hosting the article, such as SSRN (which is free). However, I did run across an article hosted elsewhere that required payment for full access.

UPDATE (12/23/09): Legal Writing Prof Blog notes a discrepancy to watch for between Google Scholar results and the official reporters, and gives the common sense advice “If you’re going to cite to legal authorities found through Google Scholar, make sure you check your results against the official (or commercial) version, as applicable, to ensure accuracy.”

Dear Court Reporters,

Having finished reading another all-capitalized reporter’s transcript it’s time to again implore you to remember that the proper use of capitalization is not simply a matter of style, but it is more a convention designed to assist the reader and prevent headaches. Capitalization helps the reader find the beginning of the sentence. Lower case letters are easier to discriminate from each other.

Style and ease of reading aside, you’d think the ALL CAPS convention might have been abandoned after it was adopted in the early internet days for use in plain text emails and online bulletin boards and chat rooms as a way of SHOUTING IN WRITING ONLINE. Once people got rich text format email ability (allowing for underlined, bold, and italicized type), the ALL CAPS SHOUTING ONLINE convention may have abated somewhat, but I’m still reminded of it whenever I read an ALL CAPS trial transcript.

I say we leave the ALL CAPS convention for deposition transcripts, where most of the shouting really happens!

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit issued a press release yesterday (PDF) announcing a pilot program allowing use of cameras in district court courtrooms. The release included this comment from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski:

“We hope that being able to see and hear what transpires in the courtroom will lead to a better public understanding of our judicial processes and enhanced confidence in the rule of law. The experiment is designed to help us find the right balance between the public’s right to access to the courts and the parties’ right to a fair and dignified proceeding,” Judge Kozinski said.

I’ve heard heavy criticism of the use of cameras in court.  Many criticized the gavel-to-gavel coverage on the O.J. Simpson case because they believed it caused the attorneys (and even the judge) to grandstand, and some felt that it contributed to Judge Ito “losing control” of his courtroom. Assuming the validity of those criticisms, I don’t think one need worry that those problems will be replicated in the federal district courts. Federal judges are hardly known for allowing attorneys to get away with misconduct.

And the question everyone is asking in the wake of this announcement: will the Proposition 8 trial be televised? Here’s the only clue given by the press release:

Cases to be considered for the pilot program will be selected by the chief judge of the district court in consultation with the chief circuit judge. The participating district courts will be asked to evaluate their experiences and report to the Council.

I wonder what “consultation” means in this instance. At one extreme the chief circuit judge would have veto power. At the other, the chief circuit judge would merely advise and leave the final decision to the chief district judge. If I can find more detail about this, I’ll post it.

Other bloggers have reported the case in detail (links later in this post), so before I get to the point of this post, I’ll just give a brief recap.

The Burlages prevailed in arbitration and were awarded damages. Respondent contended that her evidence regarding damages was improperly excluded, and moved to vacate the award based on Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5), which requires a trial court to vacate an arbitration award if “[t]he rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by . . . the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy.” The trial court vacated the award.

Seems rather straightforward, until you consider why the arbitrator excluded the evidence: it was irrelevant to the measure of damages the arbitrator applied. Respondent contended the measure of damages was improper, and that the excluded evidence was relevant to the correct measure of damages (which would have yielded a much smaller award). In other words, respondent was essentially arguing that the arbitrator had applied the wrong law on damages.

The Burlages petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order vacating the arbitration award, arguing that the motion to vacate actually sought vacation of the award on the basis of an error of law in violation of Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, in which the Supreme Court held that legal error on the face of an award “does not provide grounds for judicial review.” In a split decision, Division Six of the Second District Court of appeal rejects the Burlages’ argument.

Like the Burlages, some bloggers tended to view the respondents’ reliance on section 1286.2 as an end run around the rule that an arbitration award cannot be vacated because the arbitrator applies an inapplicable legal standard. (See., e.g., Forrester on Real Estate Law [arbitrations decisions may have "become more appealable"]; California Employment Law [claiming binding arbitration is "under attack"].) And dissenting justice Perren was not coy in his criticism of presiding justice Gilbert’s opinion, claiming that the majority’s decision “cuts the heart out of Moncharsh.”

What Burlage portends for appellate practice

Burlage will be a real boon to appellate attorneys if review is denied or if it is granted and the Supremes affirm. What Burlage arguably teaches is that you can get review of an otherwise unreviewable legal error by the arbitrator if you dress the legal error in an argument for the statutory ground of improperly excluded evidence.  Every appellate lawyer in California, yours truly included, is now more likely to give a friendly ear to prospective clients seeking  to vacate arbitration awards on the apparent ground of legal error.

The court’s faith in the arbitration process

Justice Gilbert’s majority opinion is even more entertaining than usual. But I saw some entertainment value someplace where he probably didn’t intend it. Take this (my emphasis):

We agree with the trial court’s acknowledgment that not every evidentiary ruling by an arbitrator “can or should be reviewed by a court.” We also agree with its comment, “[T]hat’s not the same as saying no evidentiary ruling can or should be reviewed by a court. . . . [I]t would have the effect of . . . deleting subsection 5 from the statute [section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5)].” This answers the dissent’s concern that our opinion makes suspect every arbitration ruling excluding evidence. In our view, should the award be affirmed, arbitration itself would be suspect.

I think arbitration is plenty suspect already. Plenty of lawyers hate it precisely for its extremely limited judicial review. By broadening the scope of that review, Burlage is just likely to make arbitration’s fans view it with suspicion, too, as they lose confidence in whether it will be truly binding.

Business litigation attorney Bruce Nye finds Justice Gilbert downright naive. You can read why at CalBizLit.

UPDATE (1/6/10): Talk about night and day! Check out my post at The Ninth Circuit Blog of Appeals regarding a Ninth Circuit case decided earlier this week that I think demonstrates a far more conservative approach to judicial review of arbitration decisions (while not concerning quite the same point as Burlage, and in the context of a three-arbitrator panel rather than a single arbitrator.)

UPDATE (1/21/10): So much for my fortune-telling skills. The Supreme Court denied review today.

Today we consider the familiar “abuse of discretion” standard and how it limits our power as an appellate court to substitute our view of the facts, and the application of those facts to law, for that of the district court.

***

[W]e conclude that our “abuse of discretion” standard is in need of clarification. The standard, as it is currently described, grants a court of appeals power to reverse a district court’s determination of facts tried before it, and the application of those facts to law, if the court of appeals forms a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” At the same time, the standard denies a court of appeals the power to reverse such a determination if the district court’s finding is “permissible.”

Because it has previously been left to us to decide, without further objective guidance, whether we have a “definite and firm conviction that mistake has been committed,” or whether a district court’s finding is “permissible,” there has been no effective limit on our power to substitute our judgment for that of the district court.

Today, after review of our cases and relevant Supreme Court precedent, we re-state the “abuse of discretion” standard of review of a trial court’s factual findings as an objective two-part test. As discussed below, our newly stated “abuse of discretion” test requires us first to consider whether the district court identified the correct legal standard for decision of the issue before it. Second, the test then requires us to determine whether the district court’s findings of fact, and its application of those findings of fact to the correct legal standard, were illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.

I’ll be straight with you here: I haven’t read the combined 107 pages of opinions. You can get more details about the case from Ninth Circuit Blog.

I’ll probably have more to say about this case after I’ve read it in detail, but for now . . . well, as I’ve noted before, detailed formulations of the abuse of discretion standard tend to incorporate multiple standards of review, each of which is applied to a discrete step in a multiple-step analysis as to whether the trial court abused its discretion. The Hinkson formulation certainly seems to continue that tradition. It is a welcome development, but I’m not sure that the second step supplies the objectivity the court claims it does.

Given that most people’s exposure to the law through the entertainment media nearly always involves a trial, this session strikes me as an excellent opportunity to educate the public about appeals. After all that exposure to movie-version trials, one suspects that the typical student, unless adequately briefed on the proceedings beforehand, would walk away from an appellate hearing saying to himself, “That’s it?” I’m curious whether that sentiment came out during the Q&A or in the preparation leading up to the event.

Also anticipating that sentiment was the reporter who wrote the article run by the Napa Valley Register the day prior to the session, who apparently had brief experience covering appellate decisions, and offered this comparison of trial and appellate proceedings:

While jury trials have some drama, what with the grilling of witnesses and introduction of eye-opening evidence, trials also can be tedious.

At the court of appeals, it is literally stand and deliver.

A lawyer has 20 minutes or so to persuade the court he or she is right, with the other side firing back from steps away. Either side can be undone by the justices, who can ask whatever they want whenever they want of whomever they want, making hash of a lawyer’s best-laid plans.

This actually strikes me as a a pretty fair layman’s synopsis of the differences between trial and appellate proceedings. It’s no doubt enough to scare some people out of ever considering appellate practice (probably the same people who prayed all during law school that their professors would not call on them in class). For the well-prepared appellate advocate, it not only can be a great challenge, it can also be quite enjoyable.

By itself, however, the comparison does not answer the “that’s it?” query. There are plenty of subtleties (and a heck of a lot of preparatory work!) involved in every oral argument. I will continue to write on those topics, but you can see what I mean by some of my earlier posts on the topic of oral advocacy.

For the past few weeks, I’ve been considering how to get started blogging again. I’ve been mulling a change in focus of the blog, design changes, perhaps starting another one. Something I could do to rekindle my blogging spirit and herald my return to the keyboard.

Then, today I was thinking, “No. Forget about grand announcements. Forget about design changes. Forget about a shift in focus. Forget all that crap, and just start blogging again.”

As if on cue, I got linked today in a post at Real Lawyers Have Blogs. Some kind words, too, in an interview with Michael Reitz of The Supreme Court of Washington Blog:

Lisa Kennelly: What value do you feel a blog specifically covering a state’s Supreme Court provides? Do you think every state could stand to have a blog like yours?

Mike Reitz: Yes. Every state should have a blog that covers the state’s appellate courts. The state high courts are often the courts of last resort for noteworthy cases. Additionally, state supreme courts have led the revival of looking to state constitutions, rather than the U.S. Constitution only, for the protection of individual liberties. There are a number of quality bloggers covering their state courts—D. Todd Smith of the Texas Appellate Law Blog and Greg May of the California Blog of Appeal for example.

I was horrified. Horrified. People were clicking their way here and finding at the top of the blog . . . an 8-week old post on the riveting subject of the closure schedule for the state’s courts. If they bothered to work their way down the page, they saw three posts over the four months before that. Wow, I’ll bet they were impressed!

Well, I am gearing up to blog again. And I still plan to do some tinkering with the blog. But I’ll just experiment as I go.

Those of you who prefer not to risk miscounting your Wednesdays can find a list of closure dates through June 2010 on the Supreme Court’s home page. In case that list is no longer there when you look, Kimberly Kralowek has posted the same chart at The UCL Practitioner.

Substantively, the post is remarkably thorough and fun to read. (Herrman’s obsession isn’t the only humorous point.) It concludes with interesting detail on the most recent Supreme Court decision and a discussion of practical consequences.

(For Ninth Circuit practitioners, it may be interesting to note that the trigger for Herrmann’s and Beck’s post was last month’s Supreme Court decision in Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. __ (2009). Carlsbad came from the Federal Circuit, which had split from several others, including the Ninth, to hold that 28 USC § 1447(d) precludes appellate review of a remand order based on the district court’s discretionary decision under 28 USC § 1367(c) not to assert supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. The Supreme Court’s reversal vindicates the Ninth Circuit’s wisdom (not to mention adherence to stare decisis) when it declined the invitation to reconsider its position in last year’s California Dept. of Water v. Powerex ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2008). [I'll update that cite for you later when I have access to the reporters.] By the time of the California Dept. of Water case, the rule was well-established in the Ninth Circuit that review was available by petition for writ of mandate. However, the Ninth was forced by intervening Supreme Court authority to find that review is available by appeal. My coverage of Powerex is here.)

Clinicians, however, have developed theories of client-centered lawyering which require that the attorney uncover their client’s values, goals and objectives that may go well beyond the discrete litigation at hand. Client-centeredness encourages the attorney to incorporate this information into his/her advocacy on behalf of their client. This article advocates incorporating select principles from client-centered lawyering into legal writing. The primary purpose for this application is persuasion and advocacy, not necessarily empowering the disenfranchised client.

This is a very interesting concept, and certainly one that cuts against conventional legal writing wisdom. It also requires lawyers to step back from the “I’m the lawyer, I know what I’m doing, leave it to me” approach to client relations. Think how much happier your clients will be knowing not only that their values are being incorporated into the project, but that incorporating those values actually makes for better advocacy.

The California Supreme Court reached a sensible decision in Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles, case no. S143929 (Apr. 23, 2009), in which the court holds that a prisoner’s pro se notice of appeal in a civil case is timely filed upon deposit with prison authorities for mailing. This brings the rule for timely filing of an appeal by a pro se prisoner in a civil case in line with the rule for a pro se prisoner’s filing of an appeal in a criminal case.

Silverbrand’s medical malpractice action against the county and jail medical personnel had been decided against him by summary judgment. He filed his notice of appeal by handing a correctly addressed, postage-paid envelope to prison officials the day before his deadline to file, but it did not reach the court until 2 days after the deadline. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal.

Here’s how the court introduced its decision reversing the court of appeal:

The prison-delivery rule — as most recently articulated by this court — provides that a self-represented prisoner’s notice of appeal in a criminal case is deemed timely filed if, within the relevant period set forth in the California Rules of Court, the notice is delivered to prison authorities pursuant to the procedures established for prisoner mail.  (See In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116 (Jordan).) The question before us in this case is whether the prison-delivery rule properly applies to a self-represented prisoner’s filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case.

Rooted in common law and well established in California jurisprudence, the prison-delivery rule, also referred to as the prison mailbox rule, “ensures that an unrepresented defendant, confined during the period allowed for the filing of an appeal, is accorded an opportunity to comply with the filing requirements fully comparable to that provided to a defendant who is represented by counsel or who is not confined.” (Jordan, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 119.)  It also “furthers the efficient use of judicial resources by establishing a ‘bright-line’ test that permits courts to avoid the substantial administrative burden that would be imposed were courts required to determine, on case-by-case basis, whether a prisoner’s notice of appeal was delivered to prison authorities ‘sufficiently in advance of the filing deadline’ to permit the timely filing of the notice in the county clerk’s office.”  (Ibid.)

There appears to be no sound basis for construing the relevant case law and rules of court as maintaining one rule in this context for criminal appeals and another for civil appeals.  Self-represented prisoners — who can file a notice of appeal only by delivering it to prison authorities for mailing — should be allowed the same opportunity as nonprisoners and prisoners with counsel to pursue their appellate rights, regardless of the nature of the appeal pursued.  Broadening the prison-delivery rule to include civil notices of appeal also should result in additional administrative benefits both for trial courts and reviewing courts, thereby improving judicial efficiency.  Therefore, for the same reasons that persuaded us that the prison-delivery rule should apply to the filing of a notice of appeal in a criminal case, we are persuaded that a notice of appeal by an incarcerated self-represented litigant in a civil case should be deemed filed as of the date the prisoner properly submitted the notice to prison authorities for forwarding to the clerk of the superior court.

That all seems rather obvious, doesn’t it? But it wasn’t obvious at all from the relevant rules of court, as the rule for criminal appeals (rule 8.308) codifies (at subsection (e)) the prison-delivery rule, while the rule for civil appeals (rule 8.104) does not. That kind of distinction usually leads a court to infer that the drafter deliberately made the rules different, and that’s exactly what the court of appeal understandably concluded in dismissing Silverbrand’s appeal.

You’ve read warnings from me time and again that the notice of appeal deadline is a jurisdictional limitation. Miss it, and you’re stuck. There is no relief.

But here, the Supremes note a tension between the unforgiving jurisdiction nature of the deadline and a policy of according the right to appeal “in doubtful cases ‘when such can be accomplished without doing violence to applicable rules.’ ” (Citation omitted.) This policy led to the development of the prison-delivery rule in the first place. Recapping that history and noting a national trend toward application of the prison-delivery rule in civil cases, the court reaches the conclusion summarized in the block quote above: there is no good reason to treat civil appeals different from criminal appeals.

The court overcomes the literal and harsh application of the court rule by noting that the rationale of the prison-delivery is not that it extends the deadline for filing to the date the notice of appeal is actually received by the court, but rather because the rule deems the notice of appeal constructively filed on the date of delivery to prison officials for mailing, despite the fact that it does not reach the court until later. I thought the opinion did some somersaults in its analysis of the rules, but was convinced nonetheless.

Please note, all you civil litigants, even self-represented ones, this does not mean your deposit in a mailbox on the last day for filing will suffice.  Remember, the court was deciding the effect of a prison-delivery rule.  If your mailbox doesn’t resemble the one pictured, you need to get your notice of appeal to the court — not the mailbox — on time.

It’s also worth noting that Silverbrand had the benefit of top-notch counsel in the Supreme Court at a bargain price (as in “free”). The Supremes appointed appellate powerhouse Horvitz & Levy to represent Silverbrand, and he had three amicus briefs filed on his behalf.

UPDATE: Thanks to Horvitz & Levy for linking to this post from their website “bragging page” about the case.

(Photo courtesy of Andrew Bardwell pursuant to Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License.)

Now, an Australian court has authorized service of summons by notifying the defendant via Facebook (sidebar note at p. 10 of this PDF).

And why not? If it hasn’t already happened here, it probably will eventually. California law (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50) already allows for service of summons by publication in newspapers in certain cases when a plaintiff shows that “the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this article.” A Facebook posting is probably far more likely to actually reach the defendant than is notice by publication in a newspaper. At least so long as the defendant’s Facebook account has not gone stale.

We now have e-filing and e-service of other papers. Summonses may be the last holdout, but they can’t hold out forever.

Conceivably, service would even be possible via Twitter with a few words and a link to an online post of the summons, though I wouldn’t advocate it. Imagine seeing this tweet on your iPhone:

You’re being sued — here’s your summons: http://tinyurl. . . .

For the lighter side of social media evolution, watch this.

Hat tip: My dad.

In [INS v. Lopez-]Mendoza [, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)], the Supreme Court clearly held the exclusionary rule does not apply to bar illegally procured evidence from admission in a deportation hearing. Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1050 (holding that the “balance between costs and benefits comes out against applying the exclusionary rule in civil deportation hearings”). The panel in Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey (Rodriguez), 536 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2008), held precisely the opposite. How we got there is an interesting— and perhaps cautionary—tale. We seem to have turned Supreme Court plurality dicta into majority dicta simply by saying so. Then, we have applied that dicta, in a manner not consistent with the sole case cited in the dicta, to create a new rule—one never envisioned by either the Supreme Court majority or the plurality.

Judge Bea then provides detail of the 4-step analysis he claims the panel engaged in. That analysis is nicely summarized by attorney and blogger Gabriel Malor:

Step One is to dig through Supreme Court decisions for dicta (that is, non-binding editorializing) that is arguably on point. Step Two is to mischaracterize that dicta as binding and creating a new constitutional test. Step Three is to “rephrase” the new rule so as to reach wider conduct. Step Four is to impose the new rule, while acting as if it was obvious all along.

And if you don’t mind mild profanity (by today’s standards, anyway), and especially if you are usually in sync with Judge Bea, I think you’ll find it ’s worth clicking on the link to Malor’s post just to read the title, which is even more blunt.

Judge Bea’s dissent is joined by three others, including original panel member Judge Bybee, who warned in his separate concurrence with the panel opinion that Ninth Circuit precedent “has set us on a collision course with the Supreme Court.” 

How do I make that connection? Because when I was done reading the case, I thought, “It’s a dismissal after sustaining a demurrer! It’s a discovery ruling! It’s two rulings in one!”

And so did the court of appeal, though it didn’t say it in so many words.

Brescia cross-complained against respondents for trade secret misappropriation.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 requires a trade secret plaintiff to identify the trade secret “with particularity” before commencing discovery.  Respondents moved for protective orders against discovery served by Brescia, claiming that he had not adequately identified the trade secret.  Finding the initial identification inadequate, the court gave Brescia several opportunities to make more particular designations, while the hearing on the protective order motions (which were now greater in number) were continued.  During this time, the respondents also demurred to Brescia’s cross-complaint.

Eventually, the protective order motions and demurrer (as well as a motion to strike) were heard on the same date, and this is where it gets interesting.  The court goes into great detail about the exchange among counsel and the court, but summarizes it as follows:

[T]he parties, in an attempt to expedite any appeal, stipulated that if the court determined the trade secret designation insufficient, it could use respondents’ demurrer to the cross-complaint as a procedural device to dismiss Brescia’s trade secret misappropriation claim for failure to comply with section 2019.210

That should have set off alarms in everyone’s mind, but we’ll get to that in a minute. The court found the disclosure inadequate and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.

Brescia appealed from the resulting judgment of dismissal and, notwithstanding his stipulation in the trial court that the inadequacy of the trade secret disclosure would dispose of the case, argued that the court could not use a ruling on the trade secret disclosure as a ground for sustaining the demurrer. After recounting all the ways in which the stipulated arrangement violated normal procedural rules and effectively converted an unappealable discovery ruling into an appealable judgment, the court reminds Brescia of the doctrine of “invited error”:

Nonetheless, despite these inherent problems, Brescia stipulated to the procedure used by the court, as did respondents.  Indeed, the trial court would not have used this procedure but for Brescia’s express consent.  Brescia is in the procedural posture he sought. To the extent he now challenges that posture as improper and awkward, he effectively misled the trial court into believing the procedure was acceptable to him as a means to secure immediate appellate review of the sufficiency of his section 2019.210 designation.  Thus, he cannot contend on appeal that the termination of his action against respondents was procedurally defective.  (See Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 [doctrine of invited error applies where party induces error and, in doing so, misleads court].)

But Brescia actually prevails on the adequacy of his disclosure, so the court reverses, rejecting respondents’ contention that the demurrer gave an alternate ground for affirmance.

Respondents argue that the alternative grounds exist to support the court’s ruling sustaining the demurrer to the cross-complaint without leave to amend:  (1) the cross-complaint fails to state facts sufficient to plead a trade secret misappropriation claim against respondents personally, and (2) Brescia’s legal theory creates an improper prior restraint on trade.

In the unusual procedural posture of this case, we decline to address these issues.  The ruling that forms the basis for this appeal is a discovery ruling – the sufficiency of Brescia’s section 2019.210 designation.  By stipulation, the parties and the court deemed that discovery ruling to be a ground upon which the court would dispose of the cross-complaint through the procedural fiction that it formed a basis for demurrer.  We have given effect to that stipulated fiction and have addressed the merits of the section 2019.210 issue.  But we will not carry the fiction further and purport to review a ruling on a demurrer that was never truly made.  Respondents are asking us, in the first instance, to rule on their challenges to the cross-complaint and to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.  We decline.  Respondents must first obtain a ruling on the demurrer in the trial court, which is the appropriate forum to determine in the first instance whether the demurrer states meritorious grounds, and, if so, whether leave to amend should be granted.

(Emphasis added.)

Curiously, none of the analysis talked about in this post is part of the published opinion, which is limited to the issue of the adequacy of the trade secret disclosure. The court clearly was not pleased with the stipulation, and a published decision would have announced their discouragement of such arrangements.  On the other hand, notwithstanding the court’s distaste for the arrangement, publication might have encouraged more of them.  The court did, after all, hear the appeal, and determine the merits of the underlying discovery ruling.  Other plaintiffs faced with the same unattractive alternatives to such a stipulation — waiting to appeal after final judgment or petitioning for writ relief with a greater than 90% chance of not being hard on the merits — may find the “Brescia option” attractive . . . if they learn of it.

In re B.S., case no. E045748 (4th Dist. Mar. 17, 2009) is a case of alleged jurisdictional conflict between two divisions of a superior court — the criminal court and juvenile court — both of which (and in that order) issued restraining orders against the appellant father of the infant B.S.  The criminal court order issued on Judicial Council form CR-160, and ordered that petitioner “must not harass, strike, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), follow, stalk, molest, destroy or damage personal or real property, disturb the peace, keep under surveillance, or block movements of” B.S. and B.S.’s mother.  At the juvenile court hearing, appellant insisted this restraining order was enough, and that it would be improper for the juvenile court to order anything more restrictive, but that is just what the juvenile court did.  On Judicial Council form JV-250, the juvenile court entered a more restrictive restraining order that also prevented the father from contacting (with extremely limited exceptions) the mother, B.S., and the maternal grandmother and required that he keep a minimum distance between himself and any of them.

The father contended on appeal that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restraining order because of the pre-existing restraining order issued by the criminal court.  That was an awfully tough sell in light of the statutory scheme:

Here, the Legislature has provided that a restraining order issued by a criminal court against a defendant charged with domestic violence “has precedence in enforcement over any civil court order against the defendant . . . .”  (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (e)(2).)  Thus, it evidently contemplates the issuance of a criminal restraining order, despite a preexisting civil restraining order, or vice versa. 

This precedence was not undercut by the father’s resort to the policy behind the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction:

The father, invoking the policy behind the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, argues that he has been saddled with “the burden of having to deal with multiple courts and potentially conflicting orders.”  However, he has not pointed out any actual conflict between the two orders.  The criminal order does not require him to do anything that the juvenile order prohibits, or vice versa.  Admittedly, the juvenile order is more restrictive than the criminal order.  Nevertheless, it is possible for him to comply with both.  In any event, the juvenile order provided that any apparent conflict must be resolved in favor of the criminal order, thus making any actual conflict impossible. 

The father argues that the two orders are “confusing” with regard to which order takes precedence.  But not so.  The criminal order provided, “[T]his order takes precedence over any conflicting protective order . . . if the protected person is a victim of domestic violence . . . .”  The juvenile order then similarly provided, “If a criminal restraining order . . . conflicts with a juvenile restraining order . . . , a law enforcement agency must enforce the criminal order.  . . . Any nonconflicting terms of the juvenile custody or visitation order remain in full force.”  Thus, both orders consistently provided that, in the event of an actual conflict, the criminal order would take precedence.

It’s difficult to see where the father’s lawyer saw any opening here.  This rule of precedence is not merely buried in the statutes; it is part of the standard language on forms CR-160 and JV-250. Perhaps the benefit of 20/20 hindsight is to blame, but I think this had to look unpromising from the beginning.

UPDATE:  So I got to thinking . .  . I’ve got 20 or 30 years left in my legal career.  Will I see a juror’s mental telepathy about a case raised as a ground for appeal?  I don’t know, but if mental telepathy is possible, it will sure change oral argument, especially how an advocate handles questions from the court.

— “Judge Marten is talking to reluctant witness in chambers with a court reporter transcribing the conversation.”

— “The witness who was yelling in the hallway earlier has not returned to the courthouse.”

— “Defendants are chatting and laughing among themselves.”

— “Exhibits are shown electronically. Every juror has a monitor in the box. There is a monitor at each lawyer’s table and one for the gallery.”

It won’t be long before journalism schools offer a course in “journalism in 140 characters or less.”

We’ve already seen a blogging juror become a potential issue on appeal.  But it seems unlikely we’ll see tweeting jurors any time soon.  It would be awfully hard to tweet from the jury box without being noticed.

UPDATE: I was wrong.

I do plan to get a substantive post up this week and get back on a regular posting schedule soon.  Just wanted you all to know the blog has not been abandoned.

As a welcome back treat, allow me to share a couple of blawg items I found interestting.

First, I just ran across a blog called “EvilEsq,” which I discovered when its author started following me on Twitter.  Here’s an image from it, which, along with the title, is probably enough to tell you that you don’t want your name to show up there:

Second, the blog of Fresno criminal defense lawyer Rick Horowitz has one of the best subtitles ever, at least if you’re an appellate guy:  Probable Cause: The Legal Blog with the Really Low Standard of Review.

Back to work, everyone.

The underlying proceeding was filed by the minority shareholders of a corporation to force its dissolution.  The parties stipulated to follow the buy-out procedure of Corporations Code section 2000, under which the corporation would purchase the shares of the minority shareholders.  Since the parties could not agree on share value (imagine that!), the majority shareholders were required to post a bond pending a final order.

After independent appraisers submitted a unanimous valuation report to the court, the minority shareholders moved to confirm the appraisal.  The majority shareholders fought the motion, contending that the business had been overvalued.  The trial court adopted the appraisers’ valuation of the company and entered an alternative decree fixing a share price and setting a date by which the purchasing shareholders had to tender cash payment to the minority shareholders for their shares, and which provided that failure to timely tender cash payment would result in the entry of judgment of involuntary dissolution.

Ten days before payment was due (and without making any payment), the corporation filed its notice of appeal, and three days after that they filed their petition for writ of supersedeas in the court of appeal without first seeking a stay in the trial court.

The court denies the petition, with some lessons along the way, which I present in no particular order.

The issue that I think caused the court of appeal to publish the decision is the first one it tackles: whether the alternative order was automatically stayed upon the filing of the appeal from it.  The court holds that the order was not automatically stayed because the proceeding wasn’t really an “action” for purposes of the rules governing stays and undertakings on appeal in a civil “action.”  (Code Civ. Proc. secs. 22-23.)  In fact, the parties agreed that the involuntary dissolution suit was a “special proceeding” under Code of Civil Procedure section 23.  Since the stay provisions (Code of Civil Procedure sections 916 et seq.) of Part 2 of the Code apply only in civil actions, the decree was not automatically stayed.

(This is probably a good time to warn prospective appellants in civil actions against taking comfort in the “automatic stay” of Code of Civil Procedure section 916, under which “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order.”  There’s a huge “but”: the automatic stay of section 916 is subject to so many exceptions that they  swallow the rule, and it is the unusual case that is actually stayed automatically.)

Special proceedings are subject to the stay provisions of Part 2 only if the statute creating the special proceeding expressly incorporates them.  The majority shareholders directed the court’s attention to Corporations Code section 2000, subdivision (d), under which, to prevent winding up and dissolution, the purchaing parties “shall pay to the moving parties the value of their shares ascertained and decreed within the time specified pursuant to this section, or, in the case of appeal, as fixed on appeal.“  (Emphasis added.)  Unfortunately, they did not make clear what they thought the significance of the provision was.

The court rejects two possible assertions based on the cited language.  First, holding firm to the rule that statutory incorporation of Part 2 must be express, it rejects the possibility that the cited language was intended to incorporate the stay provisions of Part 2.  Second, it rejects the possibility that the cited language itself imposed a stay.  Because there is a stay on appeal from special proceedings only when the implementing statute expressly incorporates Part 2, the  language cannot be read to implement a stay independent of Part 2.

I think that’s probably it for the new stuff.

One thing really jumped out at me.  Did you note my reference to “possible assertions”?  The court began its analysis: “It is unclear how subdivision (d) purports to address the narrow question of whether an automatic stay comes into effect upon the perfecting of an appeal.  If the argument is that . . . “  If the argument is?  The court was confused what the appellant’s argument was even after hearing oral argument!

Reminder of an old rule: self-executing judgments are not automatically stayed (and supersedeas is usually inappropriate, too).  Since failure to tender payment for the minority’s shares would result in a judgment of dissolution without further action by the court, it is self-executing, and thus not stayed.

Another reminder of an old rule: apply for a stay in the trial court before petitioning for supersedeas.  Moving on to its discretionary power to issue supersedeas, the court cites appellant’s failure to seek a stay from the trial court as grounds for denying the petition, which ought to serve as an important reminder to appellants that the court of appeal takes this prerequisite seriously:

An application for a stay of a judgment should, wherever possible, be made first in the superior court. [Citation.] The reason is self-evident but it bears repeating.  “A trial court’s familiarity with the evolving circumstances of a case normally constitutes it the appropriate forum to weigh the relative hardships on the parties, including the likelihood that substantial questions will be raised on appeal, and its refusal to grant or to continue an injunction during appeal is entitled to great weight.” [Citation.]

Appellant said it did not apply for a stay in the trial court because it did not believe it had any remedy available to it there (remember that Code of Civil Procedure section 918 would not apply).  However, Since the trial court’s preliminary decree had specifically allowed that the payment date could be postponed “for good cause,” the court of appeal holds that relief was at least theoretically available in the trial court.  Thus, the court denies the petition “on the narrow ground that the [petitioners] should have sought relief in the superior court first.”

Make sure you provide an adequate record when you are seeking supersedeas.  Petitions for supersedeas are often filed prior to preparation of the record on appeal, so the petitioner is responsible for submitting documents to the court of appeal sufficient to decide the petition.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.112(a)(4)(B)(iv).)  Though appellants argued that it would raise a substantial question on appeal regarding the propriety of the appraisal procedure, it did not even submit its own papers opposing the motion to confirm the valuation.  Their failure to do so could only emphasize that the superior court, because of its familiarity with the case, was better suited to first entertain a request for a stay.

By the way, the case is very interesting reading on the subject of involuntary dissolution.

SCOTUS granted cert Friday afternoon, so there is sure to be another burst of blog coverage about the case.  If you want to get up to speed while saving yourself some clicks, go straight to this synopsis by newly minted California lawyer “Gabriel Malor” (a pseudonym, for reasons he explains here).  (Don’t be misled by the “moronlogger” label in his sidebar.  He [assuming "Gabriel" is really a "he"] frequently provides very good, concise coverage of major legal developments at his blog, Gabriel Malor.)

“Dominance and submission” at appellate oral argument is one of the areas taken up by UNLV law professor Michael Higdon in his forthcoming Kansas Law Review article, available now at SSRN: Oral Argument and Impression Management: Harnessing the Power of Nonverbal Persuasion for a Judicial Audience. From the abstract:

As you will see in the article, nonverbal communication goes well beyond simple hand gestures, but also encompasses how a person speaks, how a person dresses, a person’s facial expressivity, and even such things as a person’s posture and head position. Furthermore, social science research reveals that both these and other nonverbal cues can greatly impact the perceived credibility and persuasiveness of a speaker. Not only that, but in many instances, listeners tend to place even more reliance on what a speaker is saying nonverbally than the actual substance of the speaker’s presentation. Given that attorneys should seek to maximize their persuasive potential during oral argument, knowledge of this research and these various principles is essential. Section III of my article explores this research.

Of course, what makes nonverbal persuasion somewhat different for oral advocates comes from the fact that the attorney is directing his argument not to a jury, but to a judge. As my article details, one of the ways a speaker nonverbally increases his ability to persuade is by employing nonverbal cues that enhance the speaker’s perceived dominance. When appearing before a judge, however, the attorney must keep in mind that 1) it is the judge who is most dominant and 2) the judge expects nonverbal cues from the attorney that the attorney understands this hierarchy. Again using social science research, Section IV of my article explores this balancing act between dominance and submission and offers concrete advice on how oral advocates can navigate that somewhat thorny issue.

If you ever feel like testing out this theory of dominance and submission, just interrupt one of the judges while he or she is speaking.  You’ll usually learn who’s dominant pretty damn fast.

A smart lawyer, of course, would not rely on age alone.  The lawyer would point to some changed circumstance since the time the case was decided, such as changes in statutes or case law that the older decision relied on.  Nonetheless, I feel a little better having Mehr at my disposal.

Here’s the full paragraph from the case:

Although the California Supreme Court is free to overrule its own prior decisions, the doctrine of stare decisis compels lower court tribunals to follow the Supreme Court whatever reason the intermediate tribunals might have for not wishing to do so. [Citations.]  There is no exception for Supreme Court cases of ancient vintage.

Speaking of cases of ancient vintage, they seem to crop up a lot in the area of stays and supersedeas pending appeal.  This strikes me as an odd place for old cases to dominate, in light of the intervening overhaul of the relevant statutes.

If anyone has an explanation, theory, or even a SWAG** as to why old cases dominate in this area — or who, perhaps, wishes to point out that my factual premise is wrong — please leave a comment on this post. (**SWAG = Scientific Wild-Ass Guess – a term I picked up while studying engineering.)

Termo and Angus Development Corporation were co-petitioners in the administrative writ proceedings.  The trial court denied the writ.  Termo filed its notice of appeal from the judgment on the 59th day following service of notice of entry of judgment — just one day prior to the jurisdictional deadline of 60 days following mailing of notice of entry of judgment.  (See rule 8.104(a)(2), Cal. Rules of Court)  Angus filed its notice of appeal from the same judgment two days later — 61 days following mailing of notice of entry of judgment.  Respondent Hunt Petroleum (AEC), Inc., joined by respondent Director of Conservation Bridgett Luther, moved to dismiss Angus’s appeal on the basis that it was untimely filed.

The applicable rule** states: “If an appellant timely appeals from a judgment or appealable order, the time for any other party to appeal from the same judgment or order is extended until 20 days after the superior court clerk mails notification of the first appeal.” (** The court decided the case on the basis of former rule 8.104(e)(1) as in effect at the time the appeals were taken, but the wording of current rule 8.108(f)(1) is identical, as is the “Cross-appeal” heading noted by the court, and thus the result should be the same under the current rule.)

Respondents contended the rule applies only to cross-appeals and to parties adverse to the first appellant, but simple statutory definitions allowed the court to make short shrift of those arguments:

Hunt contends that California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e)(1) is inapplicable, for two reasons. First, Hunt says the rule applies only to cross-appeals and Angus did not file a cross-appeal. Second, Hunt asserts that the rule applies only when the party seeking to utilize the 20-day extension period is adverse to the first party to file an appeal. We disagree.

Although the topic heading to California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e) reads “Cross-appeal,” as Angus points out, “[b]y definition, a cross-appeal is any appeal filed after the first appeal [citation], and [the] rule . . . does not differentiate between cross-appeals which are protective and those which are independent.” (Life v. County of Los Angeles (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297- 1298, fn. omitted.) Moreover, “[t]he usual rules of statutory construction are applicable to the interpretation of the California Rules of Court. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1296.) “‘“When statutory language is . . . clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and courts should not indulge in it.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Under the guise of construction, the court will not rewrite a law and will not give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the terms used. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Here, the text of rule 8.108(e)(1) contains no limitation of the type asserted by Hunt. It requires neither that an appeal be denominated a “cross-appeal” nor that the second party to file an appeal be adverse to the first party to do so, in order for the 20-day extension period to apply.

In this case, Termo filed a timely appeal from a judgment and an order and, two days thereafter, Angus filed an appeal from the same judgment and order. The appeal of Angus is timely filed under California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e)(1). The motion to dismiss is denied.

Appellate practitioners already know not to turn away a client just because more than 60 days have elapsed since the notice of entry of judgment was mailed and the client has not yet appealed, because post-trial motions can extend the time to appeal.  (See rule 8.208(b)-(e).)  Make sure you don’t overlook this interpretation of rule 8.108(f)(1), either.

My thanks to Long Beach business litigator Charles Hokanson, who alerted me to this important case, knowing that I was on hiatus when it was published.  Nice to know at least one of you guys is looking out for me!

There is another aspect to the media coverage that I did not give much thought to, and that is the way that the media painted the materials as sexually graphic and/or obscene.  Considering the mischievousness that is usually attributed to Judge Kozinski, I figured that would be water off a duck’s back.  And while it might have been just that for Judge Kozinski, a long-time critic of the Los Angeles Times isn’t taking it so lightly.

Blogger Patterico blasts the Times’s coverage of the Kozinski incident in his round-up of 2008 L.A. Times reporting at Patterico’s Pontifications.  Among his findings is that the source for the article is a man with a long-running feud with Judge Kozisinski.  And to give you an idea of his post, here’s what Patterico describes as one distortion:

The paper also referred to “themes of defecation and urination” — but vastly understated the humorous context of any such themes. Rather than graphic depictions of bodily functions, material with themes of urination turned out to be stuff like this:

Patterico appears to come at the issue as much from the Right as the Times does from the Left, and I didn’t follow all of his links, so I don’t know if his own critique is fair. But anyone who wants to give Judge K a fair shake should probably look at Patterico’s post, which includes many links to prior coverage.  (That link leads to a very long post — you can find the part about Judge Kozinski by searching for his name or scrolling down until you see his picture.)

I hope you all have a wonderful Christmas, a fun New Year’s celebration, and a fantastic 2009.

By the way, the announcement also includes the news that the court’s L.A. office will also start closing for lunch between noon and 1 p.m. starting Monday, December 15, 2008.

As for an answer to the question itself, this looks like a pretty darn good place to start.

My work schedule remains light as I continue to struggle through whatever crud I have.  Honestly, I thought I’d be over this by now, but the duration of this energy-sapping malady is going on four weeks!  Thanksgiving Day reminds me, however, that I should grateful my illness amounts to nothing more than a severe inconvenience. 

I haven’t been looking at the courts’ output for the last month or so, so if there’s anything of appellate interest that you think I should write about, email me with the case information and I’ll try to get to it. I am hopeful that I will resume posting next week.

 I’ve been able to work only on those projects demanding my immediate attention.  Since my blog can’t be dismissed for failure to post, while my cases can be dismissed for failure to file, my limited hours of coherence each day have been devoted to my cases.

I finally feel like I’m on the mend, and hopefully, I’ll be back up to speed next week.

And don’t let this stop you from sending me new cases!

One essential trait that an appellate lawyer must possess is the ability to think about legal issues from the perspective of judges who serve on appellate courts. Appellate courts are not only responsible for trying to reach the correct result in the cases on appeal, but their rulings often create precedents that will govern other cases that don’t even exist yet. Thus, an appellate lawyer must be cognizant not only of how existing precedent will affect an appellate court’s view of a newly filed appeal, but also about how the precedent created in the course of deciding the new case will affect the future direction of the law.  

Not every appeal has such an issue.  If all appeals did, you wouldn’t see so few decisions published.  But this is a question that must be part of every case evaluation and, if such an issue is present, the question of “what if” must be anticipated and answered before it is asked.

At a recent session, a somewhat mischievous question from the presiding justice brought some grins to those waiting and provided food for thought.

Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert is well known for his wit, and recently it even came out during the criminal case calendar. Usually, all four justices in the division are on the bench, and Justice Gilbert will announce with each case called which of the four justices are on the three-justice panel for that case. One appellant’s counsel took the podium and asked if Justice Gilbert could repeat which of the three justices were on the panel. After repeating the names, Justice Gilbert asked the attorney how she was going to do anything different now that she knew. It seemed like a mischievous question.

Wanting to know who’s on your panel, though, isn’t all that bizarre a request, especially if you’ve become familiar (or at least think you have) with the idiosyncrasies of each justice. Everyone’s heard experienced (and sometimes not-so-experienced) attorneys offer such sage wisdom as “If you draw Justice Razzamatazz, remember that he’s still bitter that the Supreme Court reversed him in Folder v. Screen, so he’s susceptible to arguments that situations shouldn’t be be governed by Folder.” True or not, attorneys act on such “revelations.” (One of the other Justices even quipped in response to Justice Gilbert’s question that if swing Justice Kennedy were on the panel, he’s the only justice the lawyer would have bothered to address.)

In fact, Justice Gilbert may have inadvertently been on to something. A while back, Tom Caso highlighted a study noting that certain substantive areas of the law draw more opinions from some judges more than others. In the words of the author “opinion specialization [is an] unmistakable part of every day judicial practice.” Tom took note of the practical implications:

If true, this suggests a more focused approach for the federal appellate lawyer. One of the difficulties for the appellate practitioner is not knowing the audience for the brief. If, however, opinions are assigned based on the specialities of the individual judges, the brief can be written with those individual judges in mind. This population of potential opinion writers is still larger than the ultimate panel that will hear the case. Nonetheless, by studying whether a particular subset of judges in your circuit write most of the opinions in your area of the law, you have the opportunity of focusing your presentation to address the concerns of those particular judges.

I think a lot of lawyers put too much stock in what they think they know of a judge’s biases. Most of the time a lawyer expresses a negative opinion about the judge, I find it is due to sour grapes over a loss.

However, a judge’s legal approach to things is certainly a fair factor to take into account. For instance, it’s probably not wise to rely on the aforementioned “Justice Razzamatazz’s” purported “bitterness,” but it strikes me as practical to look at his reasoning in the Folder case to see if you can craft an argument that is more likely to persuade him.

Tri Counties asserted that the the judge should be disqualified for conducting an independent investigation into a factual issue relevant to class certification.  It learned of the investigation from the trial court’s tentative ruling in the class certification motion and, in a supplemental memorandum, urged it as a ground to deny certification.  When the trial court certified the class, Tri Counties sought appellate review of the certification order by petitioning for a writ of mandate, citing the improper investigation as a ground to grant the petition, but did not seek the trial judge’s disualification.  Only after that petition was denied did Tri Counties submit its 170.3 statement of objection, which the trial court struck as untimely.  Tri Counties then filed a writ petition challenging that order.

Tri Counties contended that the stay issued in connection with the first writ petition prevented it from filing its statement of objection until the conclusion of that proceeding.  The court notes, however, that the stay did not take effect until more than three moths after Tri Counties became aware of the improper investigation, leaving it plenty of time to challenge the judge.

The second reason the court gave was more interesting.  It holds that proceedings regarding the qualification of a judge are distinct from the ordinary proceedings, and the stay affects only the latter:

Second, although unnecessary to our conclusion that the statement of objection was untimely, it is our view that petitioner could have filed a statement of objection even while the stay was in effect.  Our general stay of proceedings was obviously directed to the underlying proceedings between the parties to the action (i.e., to the litigation itself), not to questions of the judge’s qualification to preside over those proceedings.  A judge’s qualification to preside as judge in a particular case is foundational to, and hence distinct from, the ordinary proceedings between the parties that would be tried or heard by the judge.  (See § 170.5, subd. (f).)  Because of this basic distinction between a judge’s qualification and the underlying litigation, we do not believe that our stay could reasonably be understood as barring petitioner from promptly filing a statement of objection in the trial court.  We note further that disqualification of the trial judge was not raised in the writ of mandate petition challenging the class certification order, thus the filing of a statement of objection to pursue disqualification would not have interfered with or affected our appellate review of that order.

This is an interesting and important distinction.  It’s also quite interesting that the court went out of its way to discuss it, since it was unnecessary once it found Tri Counties had delayed too long even before the stay went into effect.

Modern communication and the California Rules of Court collide in Citizens for Civic Accountability v. Town of Danville, case no. A121899 (1st Dist. Oct. 27, 2008), and the winner is . . . the rules! At issue: whether the e-mailing of a notice that a judgment has been filed, with a link to access a copy of the judgment, triggers the deadline to appeal under rule 8.104(a), California Rules of Court, which provides that a 60-day deadline to appeal is triggered when the clerk “mails” a notice of entry of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment.

The trial court designated the case complex litigation and ordered compliance with the court’s Electronic Case Filing Standing Order, which provided that orders filed by the court would be served electronically only, either by e-mail or through an electronic filing service provider (in this case, LexisNexis File & Serve). The order granting in part and denying in part the petition for writ of mandate was served as follows:

On April 1, 2008, LexisNexis File & Serve sent the parties a message by electronic transmission (an e-mail) stating, “You are being served documents that have been electronically submitted in [Citizens for Public Accountability v. Town of Danville] through LexisNexis File & Serve.” The e-mail identified the document as a Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandate, and stated that it had been authorized for filing on April 1, 2008. To view the document, the parties had to visit a LexisNexis File & Serve website, sign in, and open a document file. The document so accessed bore an “electronically filed” file stamp dated April 1, 2008.

Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after that electronic service. The court of appeal denies he motion, holding that “the 60-day appeal period in California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1) is triggered only by the mailing of a judgment by the United States Postal Service.” (Emphasis added.) Keys to this conclusion: resolution of ambiguities in the rules should be construed to preserve the right to appeal, statutory distinctions between mailing and other forms of service indicate that “mail” means the U.S. Postal Service.

Mixed bags create competing incentives. Here, one incentive got the best of Satchmed.

UWMC complied with the judgment by offering the 22 offices to Satchmed, which decided to purchase them. But those other 12 units. . . well, Satchmed just couldn’t let go. And those guys at Satchmed must have thought, “Hey, if you think about it, we won on 22 of 34 units, so aren’t we the prevailing party?” So Satchmed appealed, challenging those portions of the judgment regarding the 12 units and the prevailing party determination.

Under the established doctrine that a party’s voluntary acceptance of the benefits of a judgment — or even a portion of them — precludes an appeal by that party, Satchmed’s appeal is dismissed on the ground that it waived its right to appeal by purchasing the 22 units. Satchmed claimed the doctrine did not apply because of two equally established equitable exceptions. The court not only rejected the arguments, but noted that Satchmed’s conduct was manipulative.

First, Satchmed claimed that its acceptance of the benefits was compelled, rather than voluntary, because it risked losing its right to purchase the 22 units if it appealed the judgment. After noting that Satchmed could have appealed “without fear that its right to accept UWMC’s offer would evaporate by the simple act of filing” because matters relating to enforcement of the judgment would have been automatically stayed by the appeal, the court points out the lack of any real compulsion:

The judgment did not put Satchmed at risk of losing any property it already owned. Furthermore, Satchmed was not at risk of forfeiting monies to which it was entitled by statute if it chose to prosecute an appeal. Satchmed just wanted to aggrandize its award without risk. It simply had to choose whether it wanted to file an appeal in pursuit of an even greater award than the judgment provided to it, which would entail risking a reversal of the favorable portion of the judgment, or whether it wanted to simply accept the benefit of the favorable portion of the judgment, and thereby waive the right to appeal from the unfavorable portions. Having to make a choice of this nature does not make the chosen avenue involuntary.

Second, Satchmed contended the judgment was severable, but the court find that the only facts that Satchmed relied on were created by it after the judgment, and points out that a party may not make a nonseverable judgment severable by its post-judgment actions:

[T]he portions of the judgment pertaining to the 12 leased units and the prevailing party status are not severable. Satchmed attempts to use clever timing to convert a nonseverable judgment into a severable one. We look here at the judgment at the time it was entered, before any party appealed therefrom. At that point in time, it is clear that the judgment was not severable. A ruling pertaining to the 12 leased units easily could have affected the 22 owned units, and vice versa. But Satchmed seized the portion of the judgment beneficial to itself, and took title to the 22 owned units. It then said that no ruling on the 12 leased units could possibly affect the status of the 22 owned units. In other words, it had then put the 22 owned units beyond the reach of UWMC’s attack and beyond the purview of this court. Satchmed’s claim that the judgment was then severable is essentially a claim that the judgment had become severable because Satchmed had made it so. It does not work that way. Satchmed cannot have its cake and eat it too. Having accepted the benefits of the portion of the judgment making title to the 22 owned units available to it, it cannot now attack the portion of the judgment making title to the 12 leased units unavailable to it.

In short: a judgment is either severable when entered or not. One cannot convert a severable judgment into a severable one.

Are you tempted by the juicy part of a judgment, but tempted to appeal the rest? Think it over carefully before you decide what to do, and especially think twice about maneuvering to make the facts fit within an exception to the “acceptance equals waiver” rule. It won’t pay off.

Well, a young blog, at least, if not brand spanking new. The California Constitution was launched in August by Howard Rice partner Steve Mayer. Good luck!

Hat tip: California Punitive Damages.

Today’s post looks at another ability-related reason the trial lawyer decides to handle the appeal. He — and in this case, I’m referring to a trial lawyer that specializes in some substantive area of the law — thinks to himself:

“This case needs a specialist.”

The trial lawyer who says that rarely means an appellate specialist. Instead, the ace employment lawyer (to use just one example) thinks, “This employment case needs an employment lawyer like me on appeal, I can’t pass it off to an appellate lawyer.” Let’s take a look at that assumption.

Does the Case Require a Specialist?

First, let me make clear that I use the term “specialist” throughout this post in the generic sense. That is, I use it not to refer to someone who is certified as a specialist by her state bar, but to refer to someone who devotes most of their practice to a certain area of the law.*

Let’s assume you’ve got a construction case handled by a construction law litigator, and now it’s time for the appeal. The lawyer who fits the type I’m describing thinks that he’s too indispensable to the appeal to hand it off to an appellate lawyer.

He may be right. (Another thing you may not have expected me to write in this series.) He may be almost indispensable in a particular case. But does that mean he should handle the appeal himself?

Probably not. Specialized knowledge of the substantive law can certainly have its advantages on appeal. That’s why a smart appellate lawyer consults with the trial attorney in any case. But specialization can breed the same sort of tunnel vision as that bred by an intimate familiarity with the case: namely, an inability to let go of (or even recognize) weak arguments, a failure to recognize good ones, and keeping too many arguments. (See Part 3 of this series for more on those problems.)

How could a specialist confuse good arguments with bad ones? Because he fails to appreciate the differences between trial practice and appellate review. Great trial arguments based on your version of the facts won’t be worth much (if anything) if the jury didn’t ultimately agree with your version of the facts. Those arguments may have seemed awfully compelling presented to a jury, and the trouble is that the trial lawyer (and especially his client) may be so aghast at the jury’s refusal to agree with his set of facts that he refuses to let the argument go on appeal.

The Client Perspective

Clients hunger for specialists. (If you don’t believe me, believe this guy.) The sad part is, the typical client’s hunger for a specialist will usually lead the client to assume that the specialist he hired for his case in employment law, school law, personal injury law, construction law — you get the picture — is the right attorney to take that case all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

It’s also possible that the client regards a long-time attorney client relationship with his law firm as a second, and equally important, form of specialization. A client that has had all its legal work, from regulatory compliance to the occasional (or not so occasional) lawsuit, handled by the same lawyer or firm for the last decade or more may view the trial lawyer (and the trial firm) as “specialists” in the client’s needs, regardless of the substantive area of the law at issue. An individual client whose solo lawyer has likewise addressed his needs over the years — wrote his will, handled his divorce, represented him in that drunk driving case, for example — may have the same mindset.

The “Last of the Generalists”

Both lawyers and their clients who are enthralled by the idea of having a specialist handle the appeal may tend to think in terms of the wrong specialties. It is not specialization in the client or in the substantive area of the law that usually matters most. It is the knowledge of appellate practice that can make the difference on appeal.

What does the client (and his or its lawyer) really need to consider? I think the answer, or at least a good chunk of it, was well expressed several months ago by D. Todd Smith of the Texas Appellate Law Blog. Writing on the related issue of whether in-house counsel should stick with big firms for their appeals, Todd wrote:

Appellate lawyers are perhaps the last of the generalists. Although appellate practice has gained notoriety as a specialty, it focuses less on the substantive law than on the lawyer’s research and writing ability, knowledge of appellate procedure, and familiarity with the court hearing the case. Because appeals are limited to the trial record, knowledge of the client’s business and history are not as important as the ability to guide the client through the appellate process with the goal for that specific case in mind.

I love that expression: “the last of the generalists.” Though it is not, of course, true in a technical sense — especially in smaller towns — I think it captures where appellate lawyers fit into a legal world increasingly dominated by specialists in various substantive areas of the law. Whether a client’s case was handled by a specialist in dog bites, toxic torts, automobile accidents, tax, employment, malpractice, wills and estates, business litigation, or any of the myriad of other specialties, the appellate lawyer is ready to tackle it.

Try Working Together

For those lawyers and clients who just can’t bear to “hand the case off” to a new lawyer for the appeal, there is always the option of working with the appellate lawyer. Shared work arrangements can be customized to a given case. Increased expenses to the client may be surprisingly nominal, since the typical appellate lawyer usually confers to some degree with the trial lawyer in any event.

* NOTE: I provide the above definition of “specialist” because my own jurisdiction is quite picky about the term. The last I checked, a California lawyer may not refer to himself as a “specialist” unless he has been certified as a specialist by the state bar. That rule applies, at least, to areas in which the bar certifies specialists; I’m not sure whether it applies if the bar does not offer certification in one’s “specialty.” Hence, my generic use of the term in this post.

The last of these variables is what helps the appellant overcome this highly deferential standard of review and have the default judgment against it lifted in Fasuyi v. Permatetex, Inc. case no. A117760 (1st Dist. Oct. 15, 2008).  Permatex made a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to vacate the default judgment against it and appealed from the order denying relief.  The court of appeal tells us at the outset that the “abuse of discretion” standard applicable here may not be quite as deferential as you would expect (footnote omitted): 

The law favors resolution of cases on their merits, and because it does, any doubts about whether Code of Civil Procedure section 473 relief should be granted “must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default [citations]. Therefore, a trial court denying relief is scrutinized more carefully than an order permitting trial on the merits. [Citations.]” (Rappleyea v. Campbell(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 (Rappleyea).) Justice Mosk began Rappleyea with a succinct statement of the question before the Supreme Court and its answer: “The question is whether a default must be set aside and a default judgment reversed on the ground of abuse of discretion. We conclude that they must be.” (8 Cal.4th at p. 978.) The question before us is the same. And so is our answer.

There are two dichotomies here, one clearly defined, one not.  Orders denying 473 relief will be “scrutinized more carefully” than orders granting relief.  That is clear-cut.  What isn’t so clear is what “scrutinized more carefully” actually means while remaining within the “abuse of discretion” standard.” 

In any event, the case is yet another reminder that “abuse of discretion” may have a particularized meaning or application in your case.  And if you happen to be requesting a default judgment any time soon, I suggest you read this case for some of the pitfalls and an exposition on the gatekeeping role of the trial court.

“Envision an appeal as the freeway between Fresno and Los Angeles, with Fresno being the filing of the notice of appeal and Los Angeles being a decision on the merits,” he said. “Now, think of each exit on that stretch of freeway as an opportunity for the court not to reach the merits. The court would prefer to take one of those exits rather than reach Los Angeles, there are an awful lot of exits, and it’s going to check each one as it goes by to see if the exit provides an opportunity to get off the freeway presents.”  Hence, his nickname for issues that can prevent a decision on the merits: “freeway issues.”

Are there freeway issues lurking in your appeal?  Be ready to address them!   Because a smart respondent’s lawyer is going to look for them.  (I will go through some of the freeway issues in a future post.)

Today’s post looks at another ability-related reason the trial lawyer decides to handle the appeal.  He thinks to himself:

“No one knows the case better than I do.”

Who could argue with that?  The trial lawyer may have spent hundreds or thousands of hours on the case over several years.  Met every witness personally and attended every deposition.  Pored through every discovery response, every document, every exhibit and every transcript.  Several times.

And yet . . . I still think it unwise, in most circumstances, for the trial lawyer to handle the appeal.  In fact, I think reliance on one’s own familiarity with the case is a particularly dangerous reason to remain counsel on appeal.  Because when the trial lawyer says, “No one knows the case better than I do,” what he’s really saying, usually without knowing it, is:

“No one knows the case from my perspective better than I do.”

A trial lawyer’s failure to include the emphasized language in his thought process indicates he’s not looking at the case objectively.  This is dangerous for at least three reasons.

First, the trial attorney (or client) may be unwilling to let go of bad arguments. Lawyers, but especially clients, can become so wrapped up in a bad argument because it has been the centerpiece of their case for years (indeed, this can often sink prospects on appeal).  Sometime, emotional attachment to the argument derives from its very nature, such as a claim of fraud or inequitable conduct against a party despised by the other.  Being out to “get” someone is a terrible reason to take your case up on appeal.  And bad arguments may even be frivolous ones, subjecting you to (admittedly rare) sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

Second, the resulting corollary: the trial lawyer misses the good arguments.  Especially easy to miss are new arguments that might be raised notwithstanding the general rule that new arguments cannot be raised on appeal.

Third, the trial lawyer keeps too many arguments.  Raising 47 points of error is not usually a successful strategy.  If the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) didn’t already exist, it would have been coined for appeals.  Of course some cases are complicated by nature, making simplification on appeal challenging, so not every case can be reduced to “simple.” But it should be reduced to the simplest possible presentation.

A fresh, objective look at the case will allow appellate counsel to clear out the deadwood and focus the appeal on the best arguments. This is because the appellate lawyer’s perspective is — initially, at least — not much different than that of the appellate court itself.  That view of the case is uncluttered by knowledge of written discovery or deposition testimony that never made it into the record (though of course, the appellate lawyer should look at excluded evidence to see if exclusion was prejudicial), or biases for or against witnesses, parties, or the judge.

Does this fresh look at the case really have to be undertaken by an appellate lawyer?  As one reader pointed out: “I think the best argument for a specialized appellate lawyer is that he or she takes a fresh look at the case and issues, but that is hardly the exclusive domain of appellate specialists.”  The suggestion is that the trial attorney can readily handle the appeal as long as he has another attorney, appellate practitioner or not, look at the case.

I think it is important that the lawyer taking the fresh look at the case be an appellate lawyer.  First, if the analysis by the appellate lawyer convinces the trial lawyer that it is best to pass the case to an appellate lawyer for the appeal, then part of the appellate work — the initial review — is already done.  But even where the trial lawyer is virtually certain he will handle the appeal himself, review by an appellate lawyer is best because the appellate lawyer will look at the case through an appellate lens, giving the trial lawyer insights he may not have gained from another trial lawyer.

Bottom line: even where a trial attorney intends to handle the appeal himself, a case going up on appeal needs a fresh look.  That can be by the original trial attorney, a trial attorney colleague, or appellate counsel.  But the trial attorney is usually best served by having it done by appellate counsel.

Such is the case with White v. Mayflower Transit, case no. 07-55528 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2008), in which the court writes that the pro se appellant contended that the district court lacked removal jurisdiction over the case.  But they don’t explain the substance of the appellant’s argument.  They merely explain how the facts of the case demonstrate the applicability of a federal statute that grants exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts.  Pretty cut-and-dried.

Why not say what the appellant’s argument was?  Given the fact he was pro se and the short, plain way in which the court establishes the existence of removal jurisdiction, I get the sense that we were robbed of a very interesting read.  Shouldn’t the court at least mention what the argument was, even if just to dismiss it as ridiculous and thereby reduce the chance that it is raised by a subsequent litigant?

I got curious enough that I looked up the case on Westlaw.  The appellant’s brief wasn’t available, but the appellee’s brief was, and according to appellee, the appellant’s arguments were “difficult to decipher.”  Thus the appellee, like the court, skipped right over the substance of appellant’s argument and presented an affirmative case for jurisdiction without trying to refute whatever it was appellant was trying to say.

In the district court, Vega challenged two conditions on the supervised release portion of his sentence.  On appeal, however, he argued that a third condition of his supervised release was also error.

You might think he’d be out of luck entirely on that third condition, the general rule being that an argument cannot be made for the first time on appeal  But he’s not.

Though Vega did not challenge the third condition in the district court, the effect of that failure is not to foreclose his argument in the court of appeals, but merely to subject his claim to a standard of review more difficult for him to overcome.  That is, for the two conditions Vega did challenge in the district court, the court of appeals evaluates the district court’s imposition of the conditions under an abuse of discretion standard, while requiring “plain error” for the condition left unchallenged in the district court.

There’s a larger lesson here.  Notwithstanding the general rule that arguments raised for the first time on appeal will not be entertained by the appellate court, I think it pays for an appellant to be aggressive about raising such arguments — good ones, at least — wherever the rules suggest a way to get them in.  Don’t dismiss arguments out of hand just because they were not raised (or perhaps raised with less specificity) in the trial court.  Carefully look at the case law, and if there’s an argument to be made that the court should consider your “new” argument, go for it.

Critical to our review of any summary judgment is the moving party’s separate statement of undisputed facts. Gunn elected to proceed by way of an appellant’s appendix (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124), in which he has included Mariners Church’s points and authorities and its attorney’s declaration to which various deposition pages and other pieces of documentary evidence, but not Mariners Church’s actual separate statement of undisputed facts. Gunn’s failure to provide a complete record arguably precludes him from meeting his appellate burden. [Citations.]

Gunn has, however, included his own separate statement in the appellant’s appendix, which appears to be in the form required by the court rules juxtaposing Mariners Church’s assertions of undisputed fact with Gunn’s responses thereto. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d).) And Mariners Church does not suggest Gunn’s separate statement inaccurately represents its statement of undisputed facts. Accordingly, we will proceed on the merits based on Gunn’s separate statement and the evidence Mariners Church submitted.

I wonder how much of the court’s forgiveness was due to the fact that it affirmed anyway. I suspect most panels would be quite reluctant to reverse on a similar record.

The bottom line: don’t rely on the court’s largesse. Include a thorough record.

Such were the lawyers representing the appellants in Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, case no. 07-35315 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2008).  Lazy Y sued, alleging a violation of equal protection, after its bids for grazing on state land were rejected in favor of other bidders.  The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that the complaint failed to allege a violation of equal protection and, alternatively, that the defendants had qualified immunity.  Their motion to dismiss relied on extrinsic documents.  Lazy Y moved successfully to strike many of those documents, and prevailed against the motion to dismiss.  Defendants appealed from both the order denying the motion to dismiss and the order striking certain exhibits.

Taking up the question of jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, the court reasons:

We begin by briefly addressing Lazy Y’s suggestion that we lack appellate jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.  Lazy Y argues that (1) Defendants’ attacks on the order denying the motion to dismiss exceed the scope of the “collateral order” doctrine upon which they allege jurisdiction, and (2) the order granting Lazy Y’s motion to strike documents is unappealable under any doctrine. We disagree.

In general, a party is entitled only to a single appeal, to be “deferred until final judgment has been entered.” [Citation.] However, under the collateral order doctrine, a litigant may appeal from a “narrow class of decisions that do not terminate the litigation, but must, in the interest of achieving a healthy legal system, nonetheless be treated as final.” [Citation.] To be appealable under the collateral order doctrine, a district court decision must (1) be “conclusive,” (2) “resolve important questions completely separate from the merits,” and (3) “render such important questions effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment in the underlying action.” [Citation.]

Because qualified immunity is immunity from suit itself and not merely a defense to liability, orders denying qualified immunity may be immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, including orders denying a motion to dismiss. [Citation.] Such an order is reviewable to the extent that it raises an issue of law. [Citations.]

Here, contrary to Lazy Y’s suggestion, we do not construe Defendants’ appeal to depend on “their version of the facts.” Rather, Defendants argue that Lazy Y’s allegations of pretext and animus are irrelevant under Equal Protection law, because they have articulated legitimate reasons for rejecting Lazy Y’s bids. In other words, Defendants argue that their articulated purposes end the inquiry and mean that Lazy Y’s claims of actual improper motives fail to establish an Equal Protection violation. They also argue that Lazy Y brings “class of one” claims that are either incognizable or not clearly established in the context of public contracting. These are contentions of law. [Citation.]

Moreover, whether Defendants’ exhibits should have been considered is essentially a legal question, and the order granting the motion to strike was simply part of the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, as the district court resolved that motion solely to establish the record for the motion to dismiss. [Citation.]

So, appellants got their day in the court of appeals.  Turns out to be for naught, however, as the court affirms.  But at least they had their shot.

In my first post in this series, I broke down lawyers’ reasons for not engaging appellate counsel into two broad categories: those related to ability and those related to economics. Today, we will examine a reason related to ability:

“It’s just litigation”, or “Hey, I’m a litigator, and appeals are litigation, so I can do it.“

Are appeals litigation?  Well, let’s see.  Adverse parties?  Check.  Legal and/or factual disputes?  Check.  Courtroom and judges?  Check.  Judgments?  Check.  Yeah, I’d say that appeals are litigation.

That said, they are a continuation of litigation, and with crossing the boundary from trial court to court of appeal, the parties and their attorneys enter a new realm.  That realm has multiple judges hearing the same case, no juries, no discovery, few motions, and an emphasis on persuasive writing that is rivaled in the trial court only on dispositive motions.

As I  noted in my first post, many lawyers are comfortable, and  quite able, on both sides of the divide.  Neither this post nor any other in the series is meant to deride the skills of trial lawyers.

But there are pitfalls that await the lawyer who assumes appellate practice is no different than trial practice.  Perhaps the biggest is the standard of review.

Pitfalls in the Standard of Review.

The trial lawyer entering the appellate landscape for the first time may have difficulty navigating through it.  That can result in wasting time (and, for the client, hourly fees) on useless activities or argument, even a failure to even recognize the burden he or she faces on appeal.

One such useless exercise in the court of appeal that happens with shocking regularity is to argue to the court as if the three justices are a jury: this witness is believable, this one is not; that evidence should be disregarded; the other side’s story makes no sense, etc.  How do I know this happens?  I’ve talked to a couple of appellate justices — not a large enough sample to be of statistical significance, admittedly — who told me this happens regularly. Not necessarily frequently, but regularly.

This approach betrays the lawyer’s lack of familiarity with the most fundamental brick in the appellate arsenal: the standard of review.  Which is why I was so stunned by the justices’ revelations, even though I have seen appellant’s briefs that didn’t even mention the standard of review.  (Occasionally, you might even see a court neglect to state it!)

Simply put, an appeal isn’t your second chance to try the case.  It’s merely an opportunity to convince the court of appeal that the trial court erred and that the error prejudiced your client.

Of course, the evidence in the trial court can come into play in the court of appeal, just in a different way (usually).  But even in cases of substantial evidence review — in which the court of appeal will reverse if there is no substantial evidence to support a finding required by the judgment — persuasion based on credibility is generally out of place.

What’s more, unfamiliarity with the standards of review on appeal might cause a lawyer to miss good arguments entirely.  An undue concentration on the evidence produced at trial may lead the trial attorney to miss important issues preserved for appeal on a less deferential standard of review, and thus presenting a greater chance of success on appeal.  Is there a legal issue you’ve missed because you are so wound up in the presentation of evidence at trial?  If so, you’ve missed an opportunity to obtain “de novo” review, under which the court gives no deference to the trial court — your best shot at success.  In fact, that legal issue may be hidden within a more deferential standard — whether the trial court abused its discretion, or whether substantial evidence supports the judgment, may in turn rely on a question of law subject to de novo review.

Simply put, the simplicity of the standard of review structure — de novo review, abuse of discretion, and substantial evidence — masks a lot of nuance not readily discernible to someone unfamiliar with appellate practice.  It’s far more than a “smell test”.  Indeed, parties regularly argue over the applicable standard, either because the nature of the issue is misleading or because the applicable standard for a given judgment has not been established (such as here, here, or here, for example).  If it were really simple all the time, would there be a book on the subject?

I haven’t discussed some other pitfalls, mostly for the sake of brevity (if you can call this post brief).  Perhaps I will give this particular reason for not engaging appellate counsel — “it’s just litigation” — a few more posts of its own.

Preferences.

Finally, the trial lawyer may find that he or she simply does not like the appellate process.  As I noted in my first post:

Some trial lawyers just plain don’t like doing appeals.  For some, it may be because appeals lack everything they like about litigation: frequent confrontation, lots of court appearances, sleuthing through discovery, and lots of twists and turns.  Appellate practice usually isn’t a hotbed of excitement.

If your strengths lie in frequent confrontation, then maybe apeals aren’t for you, either as a matter of preference or a matter of skill set.  (This is especially true if you don’t like spending time in the law library or writing, but I’ll address that preference in a future post.)

The Client’s Perspective.

The client consideration that parallels the lawyer’s belief that “it’s just litigation” is really an absence of consideration.  That is, many clients may see no difference at all between their trial court action and the appeal.  The client is only likely to note the differences if the lawyer points them out.  And if the lawyer doesn’t see them, the lawyer cannot point them out.  Under these circumstances, the only time many clients are likely to seek an appellate attorney is if the client is genuinely displeased with the trial lawyer’s services.

However, I think this situation is changing over time.  I suspect that clients, like all consumers, are becoming more and more knowledgeable all the time about the services they receive.  The inquiries I receive from lay readers of my blog tell me that clients are learning that there is a difference between trial work and appellate work.

Clients almost always want a specialist when one is available.  An employment discrimination plaintiff doesn’t seek a personal injury lawyer when a plaintiff’s employment lawyer is available.  Over time, I expect more and more clients will seek new representation on appeal, and won’t need their trial lawyers to put them on notice of the differences between trial and appellate work.  They will challenge their trial lawyers’ unspoken assumption that the trial lawyer is always the right person to handle the appeal.

(NOTE: To access all posts in this series to date, click here.  Finally, allow me to again solicit your participation.  If you’d like to offer a topic for a post in this series, leave your comment in this post or, preferably, in the post announcing this series.  And don’t hesitate to repeat a topic someone has already left.  That will tell me there is greater interest in that topic.)

Client parallel: unawareness of appellate specialization

Please let me know if you’re interested in a legal bloggers meeting at the state bar convention in monterey this week. 

We could have drinks at the Hyatt between, say, 5 and 7 on the 27th — the annual dinner & cabaret starts at 7 p.m. that evening — Saturday — and we could just flow into that event; or we could do Thursday AT the Opening Night reception, which starts at 5:45 . . . I’ve got the Cal Women Lawyers Annual Dinner at 7 p.m. 

What would be most convenient for everyone? 

Reply to Vickie Pynchon at vpynchon@settlenow.com or leave a comment on the [LinkedIn] Group discussion thread on the meetup. Thanks.

I realized why appellate lawyers at law firms are stereotypically labeled as the smartest lawyers at the firm. The fact that they can come to work, day in and day out, and spend hours thinking and writing at such a level makes them nothing less than brilliant, if you ask me.

I can’t figure out why, but that was my favorite part.

Actually, I think it’s a case of comparing apples to oranges.  I spent more than a decade litigating in trial courts, so I have a feel for both sides of the coin, and I think that whatever you like to do tends to be less mentally taxing than other things.

For example, one of the most mentally exhausting activities, in my experience, is listening to deposition or trial testimony.  Maybe that makes me odd, but trying to listen intently to every word, for hours on end, to make sure that a potentially significant disclosure doesn’t slip by used to leave me absolutely drained at the end of the day.

Image via Wikipedia

By contrast, I can spend 12 straight hours in the library and emerge fresh as a daisy.  In a networking group I’m currently checking out, I jokingly tell people that on appeal, they want an egghead like me precisely because eggheads like me like spending all our time reading and writing.  And, as I point out here, some trial attorneys find appellate work just plain boring.

To each his own.

Hat tip: Texas Appellate Law Blog.

Well, it’s been four weeks since I promised a series of posts on this topic.  You were probably about to give up on me.

I started the first post, and it kept growing, and growing, and growing . . . clearly, some better way of organizing the topics was necessary.  And I’ve devoted substantial time to it.

How did I get to this point?  I started writing about what I figure is the number one reason lawyers don’t engage appellate counsel.  The trial lawyer thinks to himself:

“I can do it myself.”

Is that the top reason trial lawyers decide not to engage appellate counsel? I don’t know, but it certainly is a major one.  I think it is quite likely the number one reason, for it arises from, and indeed encompasses, many subsidiary reasons.

Which brings me back to the categorization of reasons lawyers and clients are reluctant to engage appellate counsel.  I think lawyers’ reeasons can be broken down into two main groups:

1. Ability reasons (the “I can do it myself” mindset).
2. Economic reasons.

I may come up with other categories as I write these posts, but for now, those are the two “biggies.”  Here are the reasons I have thus far identified in each category.

Ability Reasons.

Here are some of the thoughts that go through a trial lawyer’s head when deciding not to engage appellate counsel:

1. “Hey, I’m a litigator, and appeals are litigation, so I can do it.”
2. “No one knows this case better than I do.”
3. “This case requires a specialist in the law of  [the substantive field of the case, e.g. employment, civil rights, torts, etc.].”
4. “I can research and write as well as the next guy.”

Subsequent posts will take a closer look at these subsidiary concerns leading to the “I can do it myself” mindset.   For now, let’s take a look at that statement at a macro level.

Can a trial lawyer handle the appeal of his own case, or fight the appeal by the other party? Of course. Some of them, quite ably.

Weren’t expecting that, were you? But how can anyone deny that there are lawyers who quite capably handle a case at both the trial and appellate level? I know some and have worked with some in the past. They’re not mythical creatures.  In fact, one commenter, in response to my post soliciting ideas, wrote that extensive trial court experience is an asset: “My personal belief is that appeals to the intermediate courts are best handled by lawyers well versed in both appeals and trial court proceedings. Probably not what the audience of [The California Blog of Appeal] wants to hear.”

Well, I don’t know about my audience, but I don’t mind hearing that at all.  In fact, I tend to agree, and I suspect that this describes many full-time appellate practitioners.  I can’t be the only guy who got into this gig after a dozen years of trial court litigation.

But not everyone is up to it.  Some trial lawyers just plain don’t like doing appeals.  For some, it may be because appeals lack everything they like about litigation: frequent confrontation, lots of court appearances, sleuthing through discovery, and lots of twists and turns.  Appellate practice usually isn’t a hotbed of excitement.

There are other trial lawyers who avoid appeals because they know appeals do not play to their strengths, or they don’t feel they know enough about them.

Then there are those who think, “I can do it myself,” and either shouldn’t or can’t.

Economic Reasons.

Any trial lawyer may be somewhat nervous to recommend that a client engage another lawyer for the appeal.  Some thoughts that can run through the trial lawyer’s mind:

1. “I’m handling the case for a contingency fee, and an appellate lawyer won’t do that.”
2. “I’m rather slow right now.  I could use the fee generated by the appeal.”
3. “This is a good client.  What if the appellate lawyers takes him away permanently?”
4. “I think I might have screwed this case up.  What if the appellate lawyer tells the client?”

Again, I’ll go through these individually in subsequent posts. At a macro level, though, it’s worth noting that economic concerns are legitimate.  But a lawyer has to be careful not to let his own interests trump those of the client.

Clients’ Reasons.

Sometimes, the decision not to engage an appellate attorney is no doubt driven by the client, and may even be against the advice of the trial lawyer.  Reasons include:

1. “I can’t afford an appeal.”
2. “An appellate lawyer will just try to talk me out of making the argument I want to make.”
3. “Why should I pay a second lawyer?”
4. “The case is hopeless.  Why even try?”
5. “My lawyer won at trial.  Who better to fight my opponent’s appeal?”
6. “Even if I win the right to a retrial, that trial judge will just find some other way to screw me.”

Some of these are no more than parallels to the attorney’s reasons.  I will probably discuss those in the posts about the parallel attorney reasons.

One factor, however, tends to underlay all of these: the client has no idea how different an appeal is from the trial court proceedings.  The client may think he actually gets to retry the case in the court of appeal.

Future Posts.

Keep in mind that I developed most of these reasons by asking myself why I wouldn’t engage appellate counsel if I were a trial lawyer (or a client).  And I’m not sure I’ll be able to write posts about discrete reasons without overlap with other reasons.  Some overlap is unavoidable.  But I will try to stick to a single reason as the focus of each post.

Finally, allow me to again solicit your participation.  If you’d like to offer a topic for a post in this series, leave your comment in this post or, preferably, in the post announcing this series.  And don’t hesitate to repeat a topic someone has already left.  That will tell me there is greater interest in that topic.

(NOTE: To access all posts in this series to date, click here.)

Maybe you didn’t know that this disqualification procedure is available even after reversal on appeal.  Subdivision (a)(2) of section 170.6 provides

A motion under this paragraph may be made following reversal on appeal of a trial court’s decision, or following reversal on appeal of a trial court’s final judgment, if the trial judge in the prior proceeding is assigned to conduct a new trial on the matter.  Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the party who filed the appeal that resulted in the reversal of a final judgment of a trial court may make a motion under this section regardless of whether that party or side has previously done so.  The motion shall be made within 60 days after the party or the party’s attorney has been notified of the assignment.

Since appellants frequently feel they were treated unfairly by the trial judge in the first instance, the ability to “paper the judge” after a reversal on appeal is a critically important consideration.  It may be the one thing that convinces an aggrieved party to appeal, when that party might otherwise have been resigned to accept an adverse judgment because the prospect of having to retry the case before the same judge the party thinks is an idiot is simply too daunting.

But you’ve got to be careful about when you count on it and when you don’t, as the real parties in interest learned in C.C. v. Superior Court, case no. G040580 (4th Dist. Sept. 11, 2008), a juvenile dependency proceeding in which, after succeeding on appeal by obtaining a reversal of a reunification order, real parties “papered the judge.”  Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate, and the court of appeal grants the petition.

The language allowing a peremptory challenge on remand was added in 1985 to avoid perceived bias against an appellant of a trial judge whose judgment or order had been reversed on appeal.  (Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 575-576.)  But the statute applies only where the remand requires “a ‘reexamination’ of a factual or legal issue that was in controversy in the prior proceeding.”  (Geddes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 417, 424.)  It does not apply to the performance of a ministerial act.  (Stegs Investments v. Superior Court, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 576.)

The problem for real parties, however, is that the remand order required the trial court to perform only ministerial acts.  Those were: (1) to enter a new order denying reunification services and (2) setting a permanent plan selection hearing.  The court rejected the real parties’ argument that the subsequent hearing would require a reexamination of the same issues considered in the reunification hearing.

The real parties in interest claim, “the juvenile court in the present case will undoubtedly revisit the core determinations upon which this Court based its reversal,” meaning it will have to consider the strength of the bond between the children and the mother at the permanent plan selection hearing.  This claim is true, but the consideration of the parent-child bond at the permanent plan selection hearing is not for purposes of reunification; rather, it is to determine whether to avoid the termination of parental rights and select a different permanent plan.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)  This consideration will take place in a different legal context from the disposition hearing and will involve facts as they then exist.  On remand, however, the juvenile court was merely directed to enter an order denying reunification services and to set a permanent plan selection hearing.  The implementation of these directions will not constitute a reexamination of an issue of fact or a retrial of the dispositional issues. 

Thus, “[b]ecause the matter was not remanded for a reexamination of an issue of fact or a retrial of the dispositional issues, we grant the petition and direct that the case be returned to [the challenged judge].”

The same considerations should not apply in the typical civil trial, where past facts are what are at issue.  But any time that future consideration of an issue will depend on facts as they then exist, “papering the judge” is apparently not an option after remand.

The first thing to jump out at me from this year’s report (in my thus far rather hasty review): the median time statewide for civil appeals (from time of filing the notice of appeal to the time of disposition) was 432 days in 2006-2007.  That’s roughly 14 months.  And 90% of all civil appeals are disposed of within 680 days, or about 22 months.  These are statewide numbers.  Some districts are better than others.

I may be wrong, but I think there is a general impression among many clients (and perhaps some trial lawyers) that appeals usually take much, much longer.  Clients dissuaded from pursuing or fighting an appeal by what they think will be “years” of more legal wrangling should think twice.

Hat tip re the report: Ben Shatz, who clues you in to some other statistical tidbits.

Their front-page article, Law School Rankings Reviewed to Deter ‘Gaming,’ discusses the practice of some schools to admit lower-qualified candidates only to their part-time programs, where the qualifications of the students do not figure into the rankings by U.S. News & World Report. The potential impact on rankings resulting from fixing the loophole might create an incentive for schools to change their practices, with negative effects for students:

Counting part-timers would roil the law-school rankings, which have a big impact on where students apply and from where law firms hire. A number of law-school administrators interviewed about the potential change contend it could have another effect: narrowing a traditional pathway to law school for minorities and working professionals. Those groups often perform worse on the important Law School Admission Test, or LSAT, and schools could feel pressure to raise their admission thresholds.

A change in criteria would “catch the outliers but punish part-time programs that have existed forever and aren’t doing it to game the system,” says Ellen Rutt, an associate law-school dean at the University of Connecticut. If U.S. News makes the move, many schools with part-time programs would have a tough choice: Leave their admission standards for part-timers unchanged, which could hurt their rank, or raise the standards, likely shrinking the programs and cutting revenue.

My own school (University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law) had a robust evening program. Even though I was a full-time student, I grew familiar with the quality of the part-time students because many of my elective classes were taught in the evening (in order to make them available to the part-time students). If there was a significant difference in the amount or quality of classroom participation by students, I sure don’t remember it. (Of course, I have no idea if the part-time students at McGeorge were any “less-qualified” on paper than my full-time classmates.)

While I don’t think rankings are meaningless, I hardly think they are as important as many employers and applicants seem to think they are. It is distressing to me to see so much emphasis on a school’s ranking, especially when I read in the article about measures schools take specifically to improve their ranking.

If you’d like more detail about the article before you read it, read this post at WSJ Law Blog. Some of the commenters have very strong feelings about the magazine’s ranking system.

For an alternative ranking, see Brian Leiter’s Law School Rankings.