You don't see this every day: Appellant designated a partial RT, but failed to state the points to be raised on appeal as required by CRC 8.130(a)(2). Respondent points out the deficiency "at least three times, the earliest being three days after [Appellant] filed the designation of record. Appellant ignores all this, however, and only addresses the issue "for the first time in a motion filed concurrently with his reply brief," in which he urges the Court to exercise discretion to overlook the problem. Outcome: "Because [Appellant's] violation was egregious and inexcusable," the Court of Appeal (2/8) "refuses" to overlook the problem.
[The MetNews' story on this is: Attorney Precluded From Raising Any Issues on Appeal Based on Violation of Rule]
For more lighthearted fun, look at the counsel listing in this decision: For Appellant, we have "LA Law, Inc." and for Respondent "The Appellate Law Firm." [And here's another interesting counsel listing for MyBedBugLawyer.]
Posts
