Friday, December 15, 2017

TrueFiling Software Update Notification

TRUEFILING NOTIFICATION OF SOFTWARE UPDATESoftware Update On: December 27, 2017

Introduction
This notification details a software update to the TrueFiling e-filing and e-service system for the California Courts of Appeal, for the 1st District, 2nd District, 3rd District, 4th District, 5th District, and 6th District and the Supreme Court of California (the "Courts").

New Process for Adding Entities to a Case Service List
In this update, new steps of verification have been added to change how a user can gain access to a case service list or be added onto a case service list in order to be served in a case. In the previous version of the TrueFiling system, TrueFiling users would be able to manually access a case service list and add themselves onto a list of potential case service recipients, after searching for and identifying the case through the TrueFiling case search query.
Under the new version, TrueFiling users may no longer access and manually add themselves onto a case service list simply by searching for the case and entering their name and contact information to become a case participant. Now, a TrueFiling user may access a case service list and be added as a potential recipient on a case service list only if the user has been verified by the court ("Verified User"). A Verified User is:
  1. An original case party or a case participant as reflected in the court’s records for the case;
  2. An entity that has submitted a filing in a case that has been accepted by the court; or
  3. A nonfiling entity that the court has verified is entitled to be added to a case service list (e.g., a government entity that is entitled to be noticed on a case).
  • Note: Item #3 will require the nonfiling entity to either contact the court or submit a request via TrueFiling in order to be verified by the court. A TrueFiling user meeting any of these criteria will be deemed a Verified User for the case, and will be added to the case’s service list.
Upon executing a case search query, TrueFiling users who are not verified will still be able to see the case details, but will not be able to view the case contacts list until they become verified.
Interested parties to a case who wish to be served case filings but do not qualify as Verified Users may still be served with a case filing by the serving party through the TrueFiling system. The serving case party member will be able to enter an interested party’s e-mail address as an additional entity to receive service for a specific filing. Interested parties may also be added as Verified Users by contacting the court to confirm their status as a valid case participant in the court's records.
 
Review and Confirm Your Case Service List
ImageSoft and the Courts recently discovered that a TrueFiling user accessed and added themselves onto a small number of court case service lists for unauthorized purposes. These events do not affect most court cases and TrueFiling users. We are issuing this update to add new authorization steps to better control how a user can gain access to a case service list, or be added onto a case service list in order to be served in a case.
 
For existing cases, please carefully review the TrueFiling service lists that you are a Verified User on: confirm whether the individuals listed are case parties or case participants who should be included as potential recipients for service. If you identify any individuals who you believe are not Verified Users on your existing cases, please reach out to the court to request removal of those individuals from your case's service list.
 
Where Can I Get More Information?
If you have further questions or concerns about these changes to the TrueFiling system, you may contact ImageSoft support at (855) 959-8868 or your court using the contact information below.
If you wish to remove a nonverified user from your case’s service list, you may request to do so at the following link: www.courts.ca.gov/documents/removal-form.pdf.
If you wish to verify your status as an interested party to a case, you may contact the respective court where the case is being heard as follows:
 
Supreme Court

First DCA
Second DCA
Third DCA
Fourth DCA
Fifth DCA
Sixth DCA
Scott Nasson - Sixth.District@jud.ca.gov

Appellate Tidbits

Today's DJ has many items of appellate note already noted by this blog:

  • 9th Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith to take Senior Status
  • Three State Appellate Justice Approved
  • 9th Circuit orders investigation into allegations of misconduct against Judge Kozinski  and see the related article Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?
  • And note that Chief Justice Roberts has sent the investigation to the 2d Circuit, here.
Today's DJ also features a number of articles by judges, including It ain't over til it's over by retired Justice Carlos Moreno, Admiration for those who struggle to be on juries, by LASC Judge Anthony Mohr, and Judging on the graveyard shift, by LASC Judge Lawrence Riff.

And to top it off, today's DJ profile is By the Book: Riverside County Judge Kira Klatchko reads everything, from old novels to every court brief. "A self-described law nerd, Klatchko wanted to do appellate work. She spent the lion’s share of her career as a lawyer spearheading Best Best & Krieger LLP’s appellate practice."

Of note elsewhere:

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Commission Confirms Appointments to Courts of Appeal

Here's the press release to document that Associate Justice Elwood Lui is now Presiding Justice of 2/2; LASC Judge Anne Egerton is now Justice Egerton in 2/3; and Judge Patricia Guerrero is now a 4/2 Justice. Photos of today's confirmation hearings here!

Other notable items:
  • N. Randy Smith to Take Senior Status, Opening Up Another Ninth Circuit Seat (on Aug. 11, 2018) Official Press Release here.
  • 9th Circuit In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct filed today re Judge Kozinski.
  • Federal Judicial Nominee Flunks 'Motion in Limine' Definition at Senate Hearing: Federal Election Commissioner Matthew Petersen has never tried a case, has assisted on just a handful of depositions and was stumped by a Republican congressman on a question about the basic trial term.
  • Ninth Try Is a Charm for Lawyer Making First Oral Argument: The decline in oral arguments for federal courts is well-known and documented and has sparked concerned discussions between lawyers and judges.
  • Bryan Garner's latest: How to start a sentence: Consider all your alternatives, and sprinkle in some conjunctions, too
  • Today the Ronald Reagan Building in downtown LA, home to the 2d District, had to be evacuated in the middle of 2/2's oral argument calendar, around 9:40 a.m. Everyone had to leave the building for about 15 minutes, but the entire evacuation and reassembly in the courtroom took about 45 minutes. There apparently was no actual emergency, and the evacuation alarm was apparently caused by a faulty switch somewhere--a false alarm originating from a duct in the 4th floor of the North Tower. Here's the docket for the case being argued when the alarm went off, showing argument starting at 9:34 and ending at 10:47 with the notation "(fire alarm for bldg. went off during OA on this matter)"!
  • You may (or may not) also have noticed that the online docket for California appellate courts has upgraded its security to thwart robots. The website looks the same, but if you had bookmarked particular dockets under the old system, those old bookmarks no longer work and need to be re-done.

2/6 Research Attorney Fatal Victim of Fires

Image result for black ribbonThe Southern California fires have caused tremendous property loss, disruption, and even loss of life -- all affecting the SoCal appellate community. The Santa Barbara Independent reports about the tragic death of Virginia Pesola, who worked for the Court of Appeal for 12 years, in Thomas Fire Fatality Identified.
And more sad news about another Thomas Fire fatality here.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

2d DCA pro tem bonanza!

The following are currently sitting on assignment:

  • Judge Helen Bendix of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division One beginning January 1, 2018 until February 28, 2019
  • Judge Allan Goodman (Retired) of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Two until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Halim Dhanidina of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Three until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Brian S. Currey of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Three until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Anthony J. Mohr of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Four until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Kim Dunning of the Orange County Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Five until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Dorothy C. Kim of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Five beginning January 1, 2018 until February 28, 2018
  • Judge Michael J. Raphael of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Five until January 19, 2018
  • Judge Kerry  R. Bensinger of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Seven until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Douglas W. Sortino of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Eight until January 12, 2018
  • Judge Henry J. Hall of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Eight beginning January 1, 2018 until February 28, 2018
And here's case about finality and appealability: "The trial court's order denying appellants' leave to file a second amended complaint to name [X] as a defendant had the effect of eliminating all of the issues between appellants and [X]. As such, it constitutes an appealable final judgment between appellants and [X]."

Note: The 3d Circuit has announced it will implement NextGen e-filing on January 16.

DJ profiles Justice Pena

Today's DJ presents An Evenhanded Outlook: Rosendo Peña Jr.’s academic prowess led him to research work and a job as a 5th District justice.



“He’s the American Dream,” said Rebecca A. Wiseman, a retired 5th District justice who encouraged Peña to pursue the bench when he was her research attorney.

Peña is the first and so far only Latino to serve on the 5th District, a distinction that complements what attorneys say is a lengthy list of characteristics that makes him ideal for the judiciary. He’s calm, rational and diligent. He writes well and researches thoroughly. He has deep experience in broad areas of law and a reputation for tackling complex matters with comfortable ease.


Also of note in Monday's DJ: Appellate Specialist Wendy Lascher pens Error in failing to issue statement of decision not reversible per se, about the Supreme Court's opinion in F.P. v. Monier.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

2/6 Closed by fires

December 11, 2017 -- Division Six of the Second Appellate District is expected to be closed the remainder of this week due to the fires. For case-related questions, please contact the Clerk’s Office in Los Angeles at (213) 830-7000.

Appellate case notes

Ok, ok, enough with the high-falutin SCOTUS clerks and other esoteric stuff. What about good old California appellate case law? Fine:

  • A case on appellate standing here:

Only a “party aggrieved may appeal” from a judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 902.) The objectors, however, did not intervene in the action. Nor did the objectors take any other steps to become parties of record, ask to be named as class representatives, or demonstrate any willingness to take on the
responsibilities and risks of the representative plaintiffs. Because the objectors lack party status and therefore do not have standing to appeal, we dismiss the appeal

  • Appealing from a non-appealable order -- bad idea -- here.


  • And for a delightful appellate catastrophe (e.g., frivolous appeal, rules violations, vexatiousness), see here.
Feel better now?

Oh, and in the "appellate people" department, the DJ's Verdicts & Settlements for Dec. 1 profiled retired Justice Hastings (Premium on Civility: Mediator Gary Hastings lets parties hash it out but steers them to results) and for Dec. 8 profiled former 9th Circuit mediator Lisa Jaye (Graceful Determination: Former 9th Circuit mediator Lisa Jaye is committed to resolving cases).

Appellate Specialization news

The California State Bar's Department of Legal Specialization reports the following:
  • Certified Specialist Program Fee on Annual Fee Statements for 2018 -- The Certified Specialist Program Annual Fee of $360 will appear on your electronic fee statement, and will be due by February 1, 2018. Fees received after February 1 will be subject to a $75 late fee penalty.  Dual specialists will still receive a 50% reduction in the fee for the second specialty. As a reminder, the program is entirely self-funding and all fees support the testing, review, and public protection functions for consumers.  Thank you for the steps you are taking to promote excellence in practice and to protect the public.
  • MCLE Compliance Group 2 to report 36 hours of legal specialist education compliance by February 1, 2018 -- If your last name began with H-M at the time of your admission to the Bar, February 1, 2018 is the deadline to file the one-page attestation form confirming that you completed 36 hours of legal specialist approved education or an equivalent over the last three years.  
  • Record Number of Applicants Took the Legal Specialist Examination -- A record 941 applicants took the Legal Specialist Examination in October 2017.  Many arrived in full Dodgers regalia, ready to cheer on the Dodgers in the first game of the World Series later that day. The following is the total number of applicants in each area of law: Appellate-54; Bankruptcy-29; Criminal-66; Estate Planning, Trust and Probate-201; Franchise and Distribution-6; Family-262; Immigration and Nationality-58; Legal Malpractice-27; Taxation-39; and Workers’ Compensation-199.
  • Grading is in full swing now, and the California Board of Legal Specialization would like to thank all of the volunteer graders for their investment of time and care in grading.  Final results will be mailed out by March 15, 2018 via U.S. Mail to the address in each applicant’s My State Bar Profile.  Some applicants may change their address during the mailing period for the results.  Results are only sent to the applicants. 
  • One big change this time was the large increase in applicants, a total of 788, using a computer to type their essay answers.
  • Another big change was the increase in the number of private preparatory courses available to help applicants prepare for the examination. There were preparatory courses for eight of the thirteen examinations. 
  • The next examination is scheduled for October 22, 2019 and registration will open in January 2019

Method to the Madness?

How do you spell ‘G-U-I-D-A-N-C-E’? is the title of Justice Hoffstadt's DJ column today, with the subtitle: Although the courts' hesitancy to give guidance for future cases seems maddening at first blush, there is some method to that madness.
The article begins by citing a pair of U.S. and California Supreme Court cases that expressly declined to provide guidance to lower courts about the law. "Daniels, Tovar and the like hit upon a more fundamental question: Why are appellate courts sometimes reluctant to tell trial courts what is expected of them? The short answer is: That's not the way the common law works."
Why won't appellate courts hasten this process by giving trial courts greater guidance up front, rather than requiring them to navigate between -- and extrapolate from -- the existing safe harbors and shipwrecks?
So far, the courts have offered two reasons.
First, appellate courts are leery about issuing advisory opinions.
...
Second, appellate courts are leery about tying the hands of trial judges by prescribing "magic words" that must, in every case, be said or "rigid rubric[s]" that must, in every case, be followed.


See also in last week's On Appeals column in the Recorder (by Polly Estes of California Appellate Law Group), On Appeals: Effective Letters to the Higher Court, which begins: "If you’ve ever wondered why federal appellate court judges bother to write dissents, especially dissents from the denial of rehearing en banc (“dissentals”), read the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of 'Kernan v. Cuero', where the Court observed that, “The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc over the dissent of seven judges.” This seemingly short, procedural sentence in the Court’s per curiam decision speaks volumes. It reveals that Cuero is just the most recent example of conservative judges on the Ninth Circuit using that court’s en banc procedures to try to send what they believe are important, incorrect cases up to the Supreme Court—and it’s working."

Last week's DJ had Gary Watt in Searching for Perfection: Like fly fishing, appellate work is best performed in a state of quiet contemplation:
Solving puzzles is a state of mind familiar to appellate lawyers. Blessed with a luxury of time many of our colleagues lack, we are tasked with spotting the best issues and finding the most definitive answers. But our goal -- short, crisp, persuasive writing anchored in fidelity to the record and conventions of the craft -- is often as challenging as the wary trout that fly fishers try to trick. We know why we should win. But putting it on paper is trickier than words can describe. Yet words must describe it.

Monday, December 11, 2017

Appellate #MeToo

Image result for #metoo
The #MeToo movement has hit the appellate world, as seen here, here, here, AND here, here.

And see California's chief justice has had her own #MeToo moments

The NLJ also offers: Shut Out: SCOTUS Law Clerks Still Mostly White and Male: According to a National Law Journal study, the U.S. Supreme Court’s clerk ranks are less diverse than law school graduates or law firm associates—and the justices aren’t doing much to change that.

On the topic of SCOTUS clerks, see Who Are the Supreme Court's Biggest Feeder Judges?, which has a nifty interactive bubble chart showing "The Feeder Network."

Monday, December 4, 2017

News from the 2d DCA pro bono clinic

Appellate specialist Tyna Orren provides the following news about the 2d District's pro bono Appellate Self-Help Clinic, run with the Court, Public Counsel. and LACBA's Appellate Courts Section:

General Clinic News
The Clinic operates in the Court of Appeal’s Conference Center. We are open most Wednesdays from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. the last Wednesday of each month.  We assist approximately 12 self-represented litigants each full day of operation (6 on the half days). We could help more litigants if we had more lawyers; we always end up needing to turn away from 3 to 5 people who need help.   Thus, one of the many ways to get involved is to spend a Wednesday morning or afternoon or both helping out.

You Can Get Involved
“Post-mortems” after the October brief writing clinics (see below) indicated that the project was successful, so the Clinic and the Law Library will be experimenting with offering the clinics on an ongoing monthly basis. 

WE NEED VOLUNTEERS.  We have tentatively scheduled clinics for Friday, January 12, 2018 and Friday, February 9, 2018. It would be great if we could have six volunteers for each session.  Volunteers will be provided with a brief template for the litigants to use, and with hints on the aspects of briefing that are most important to cover with lay brief writers.  Also, based on something learned from experience at the October clinics, all of the participating litigants will have been pre-screened through the Appellate Self-Help Clinic to ensure that each one is really ready to begin drafting a brief. 

PLEASE CONTACT ME (Tyna.Orren@OrrenLaw.com or 626-793-7989) if you’re interested in starting off the new year with an interesting new challenge by participating in this new Clinic venture.

Congratulations, Sarvenaz Bahar!
Sarvenaz just obtained a published writ of mandate (Rhue v. Superior Court, ___Cal.App.5th___ [2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1046]) in behalf of a Clinic patron. The patron appealed from an adverse judgment; there was no court reporter at the determinative hearing, so the patron, with the Clinic’s assistance, moved in the trial court to use a settled statement.  The trial court denied the motion. Representing the litigant pro bono through Public Counsel, Sarvenaz sought and obtained a peremptory writ of mandate in which Division Seven (1) directed the trial court to prepare a settled statement, and (2) explained in detail why a settled statements is positively required where there was no court reporter.

Thanks, Barry Wolf, Richard Nakamura, Michelle Peña, Marc Poster and Joseph Watson!
Barry has undertaken, pro bono through Public Counsel, the representation of a Clinic patron whose employment case was dismissed after the client’s attorney, who was disbarred while the case was pending, abandoned the case without telling the client.  Best of success, Barry, in getting this seemingly meritorious action reinstated!

Richard, Michelle, Marc and Joseph undertook the daunting task of helping a group of self-represented litigants prepare appellate briefs. The assistance was offered at a brief writing clinic co-sponsored by the Appellate Self-Help Clinic and the Los Angeles County Law Library during the Library’s Pro Bono week in October.

2d DCA pro tem update

The following are currently sitting on assignment:
  • Judge Allan Goodman (Retired) of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Two until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Halim Dhanidina of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Three until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Brian S. Currey of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Three until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Anthony J. Mohr of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Four until December 31, 2017
  • Judge Kim Dunning of the Orange County Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Five until January 31, 2018
  • Judge Michael J. Raphael of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Five until January 19, 2018
  • Judge Kerry  R. Bensinger of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Seven until January 31, 2018

DJ Roundup

Lots of interesting news in today's DJ:

  • UCLA Law professor and students win a string of Supreme Court reviews, about how the clinic has had seven grants of cert in the last three terms, and Prof. Stuart Banner will be arguing at SCOTUS on Wednesday.
  • Feinstein reviewing disputed ABA testimony on judicial nominee
  • Judges's dying words lamented he could no longer help people, about Judge Harry Pregerson
  • 9th Circuit gears up to hear travel ban arguments, about the arguments this Wednesday at 2.
  • State Bar plow ahead with sections' split, noting that the new entity housing the bar's specialty practice groups will be called the California Lawyers Association.
And on the columns front:
  • Moskovitz on Appeals congratulates California Rural Legal Assistance on its 50th Anniversary, in Thanks, CLRA.
  • PJ Gilbert's Under Submission column presents To doubt or not to doubt: "Perfectly acceptable words can become detestable through overuse and misuse. "Incredibly" and "iconic" vie for first place on my list of abhorrent words. Overuse sucks the lifeblood out of them."

Friday, December 1, 2017

Naming Rights

This month's OC Lawyer "Criminal Waste of Space" column is titled Naming Rights, in which our intrepid Justice Beds warily approaches a novel topic: "I have never before discussed the genitalia of a United States Supreme Court Justice, and trepidation—extreme trepidation—seems the right frame of mind in which to do so."

"Okay, so let’s review. I wrote a column about two Supreme Court justices and somehow all you got out of it was saber-toothed tigers, praying mantises, Casey Stengel, and the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers. Ten minutes you’ll never get back."

Harry Pregerson articles

Today's DJ features Southwestern Law School Professor Christopher Cameron in The Real Mayor of Los Angeles about the passing and legacy of Judge Harry Pregerson, with a focus on L.A.:
Image result for judge harry pregerson interchange los angeles signElected or not, Harry Pregerson is the mayor that every Angeleno said yes to. He was and remains the only federal judge in the country whose name appears on a freeway interchange (where the Century 105 and Harbor 110 Freeways meet), a wastewater treatment facility (at the Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant in Playa del Rey), and a day care center (in the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building downtown).

And Julie Werner-Simon piece, Judge Harry Pregerson was a Prince, begins:
In just the last few days, one charmed Prince Harry has gotten engaged and another Prince Harry has left us. Judge Harry Pregerson, the longest serving judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, died Nov. 25. The homeless, and us, in the legal community, have lost a hero.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

5th DCA pro tem update

In the 5th District, which has one vacancy, Fresno County Superior Court Judge Donald S. Black will be sitting pro-tem until December 31.

Speaking of the "5th," see Law360's 10 Tips For Effective Practice Before The 5th Circ. for some insight into 5th Circuit practice that has some generally applicability too.

Also of interest, if you promise not to appeal, then (guess what!) you can't appeal, as seen here.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

What can private court reporters charge?

Have you ever wondered: Do the statutory transcription rates apply only to official court reporters employed by the superior court--and not to private reporters retained by a party to serve as official reporters at court proceedings?

Well, here's your answer, courtesy of 2/2:
We hold that the statutory transcription rates prescribed by sections 69950 and 69954 apply to any court reporter producing a transcript of a civil court proceeding, regardless of whether the reporter is employed by the superior court or privately retained by a party. We therefore reverse the judgment.
Also of note today, for the gory details of a frivolous appellate sanctions motion, see here.

Peer into the AG's Opinion Unit

LACBA's January Appellate Courts Section program will be:

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Registration: 4:00-4:30 p.m.
Program: 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.
California Second District Court of Appeal
Ronald Reagan State Building
Employee Lounge
300 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA  90013
CLE Credit:
1.0  Hour CLE Credit (including Appellate Courts Specialization)
Description:
Learn from two members of the Opinion Unit about the unit's authorization to prepare opinions, the process for requesting opinions, how opinions are crafted, and how the unit's opinions have been received by the courts. The program will also cover the Opinion Unit's role in quo warranto actions, which resolve disputes over whether a specific person has the legal right to occupy a public office.

Courts are not the only source of published legal opinions. The Opinion Unit of the California Attorney General's Office provides formal legal opinions upon request to designated state and local public officials and heads of government agencies on questions of law arising in the course of their duties. Learn from two members of the Opinion Unit about the unit's authorization to prepare opinions, the process for requesting opinions, how opinions are crafted, and how the unit's opinions have been received by the courts. The program will also cover the Opinion Unit's role in quo warranto actions, which resolve disputes over whether a specific person has the legal right to occupy a public office.

Panelists:
Marc J. Nolan, Lead Deputy Attorney General, California Attorney General’s Office, Opinion Unit
Catherine Bidart, Deputy Attorney General, California Attorney General’s Office, Opinion Unit
Kent J. Bullard (Moderator), Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Criminal Appellate Section

Are panels really random?

A new article challenges the widespread assumption that appellate panels are random, exploring panel assignments in the United States Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th Circuits: See Levy, Marin K., Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals (Nov. 25, 2017) 103 Cornell Law Review 65 (2017). The author explains:
Image result for randomDrawing on a multiyear qualitative study of five circuit courts, including in depth interviews with thirty-five judges and senior administrators, I show that strictly random selection is a myth, and an improbable one at that—in many instances, it would have been impossible as a practical matter for the courts studied here to create their panels by random draw. Although the courts generally tried to “mix up” the judges, the chief judges and clerks responsible for setting the calendar also took into account various other factors, from collegiality to efficiency-based considerations. Notably, those factors differed from one court to the next; no two courts approached the challenge of panel assignment in precisely the same way.