DJ articles

• Today's DJ features Jimmy Azadian and Cory Webster in High Court Ruling Clarifies Anti-SLAPP in Discrimination Suits about the Cal Supremes' Park v. Cal State opinion.
• 
  



WAY off base!

• Also in the DJ, Jonathan Goldstein fires off A Waste of Limited Judicial Resources, attacking "Court of Appeal justices who are either too inexperienced for their position or who have overstayed their time on the bench. For these justices, there should be but one outcome: removal or involuntary retirement." Whoa!! He then cites People v. Paz as a "recent example of a case handled by inexperienced appellate justices or justices who have overstayed their usefulness on the bench" and "a clear example of wasting judicial and state resources in ruling on an appeal" that he contends raised such "straightforward appellate issues" that it apparently could've been decided without briefing and oral argument. He chastises the Court of Appeal because "the court decided to brief and hear argument on this case." That phrasing and sentiment speaks volumes about the level of understanding of the appellate process in this article. (As does his bio-line, which says he "clerked for a former State Supreme Court Presiding Justice." Huh? That makes no sense. "The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of California and 6 associate justices." [Cal. Const. art. VI, sec. 2.] There is no "presiding justice.") (More: the docket shows that argument was waived in this appeal.)
• [5/12 update: OCSC's Presiding Judge submits a letter to editor "shaming" Mr. Goldstein for attacking the Paz panel -- calling his article "an unmitigated affront and completely unacceptable from a member of our legal profession," and pointing out that two justices and one judge sitting by designation are all highly qualified with "impeccable credentials" and "it is utter nonsense to claim otherwise." Hear, hear!]

Today 4/3 dumps an appeal in an unpub'd decision here invoking the disentitlement doctrine to punish "intolerable conduct": "The disentitlement doctrine empowers a reviewing court to dismiss an appeal by a party who refuses to comply with trial court orders."

How important is it to answer a judge's yes-or-no question with yes or no? $500 important. See 5th Circuit upholds fine for lawyer who refused judge's request for a yes-or-no answer.