Monday, July 6, 2020
Sunday, July 5, 2020
Thursday, July 2, 2020
Bedsworth: The Geckos Are Coming, The Geckos Are Coming -- As soon as women perfect in vitro fertilization, we guys are gonna be as useless as the proverbial mammary glands on a porcine male.
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
He also proffered and relied upon as evidence, in the trial court and on appeal, documents fraudulently purporting to be instruments transferring interest in and encumbering the Sea Island property in an effort to avoid Mesa West’s lawful efforts to enforce the 2007 judgment. We report [him] to the State Bar of California for this misconduct and all the other misconduct detailed in this opinion.
"When you're on the trial court, you're interacting with the attorneys and law firms on a daily basis," Bruiniers said. "When you get on the court of appeal, you're dealing with a fairly specialized segment of the bar. You lose some of the contacts. I try to go to bar events just to maintain the relationships."
The following are currently sitting on assignment in the 2d DCA:
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Monday, June 29, 2020
- We will give appellants the benefit of the doubt. If appellants had not challenged the tentative ruling at all, they could have appealed all the issues decided by the trial court. “Submission on a tentative ruling is neutral; it conveys neither agreement nor disagreement with the analysis.” (Mundy v. Lenc (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)
- In the published portion of our opinion, we hold that [Appellant] forfeited several legal arguments that she failed to present to the trial court below. In doing so, we reject her contention that an appellate court is required to consider all arguments challenging an order sustaining a demurrer based on the compulsory cross-complaint statute when such arguments purport to raise purely legal issues that are belatedly raised for the first time on appeal.
- Arguments continue to be conducted as scheduled, with all judges and counsel appearing remotely by video or telephone. We expect fully remote hearings to continue at least through August 2020.
Saturday, June 27, 2020
- Lawmakers and witnesses at a House hearing Thursday urged courts to stream their proceedings permanently, drawing a slightly positive reaction from a key judge who focused on getting new jurists to handle a case backlog.
- Another call for streaming came from a hearing witness, Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack of the Michigan Supreme Court. "People who live far away [have] the right to see what their court is doing and how they're doing it," she said of her own state. "It feels to me like it builds trust and confidence in our branch, which, as I said, is the only currency we have."
- Congress in March gave the court system an extra $7.5 million to adapt to the pandemic. Last month, the judiciary requested another $36.6 million to cover new judgeships, assist with courtroom safety and boost teleworking capacity.
Law 360 also has Supreme Court On Pace For First July Opinions In 24 Years
The U.S. Supreme Court is way behind schedule. With only a few days to hand down its 13 remaining decisions, it seems increasingly likely that the justices are going to have to release July decisions for the first time in 24 years.
We have reviewed approximately 130 appellate decisions evaluating employment discrimination and retaliation claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, that were decided after Perry, and 99 of those cases affirmed summary judgment for the employer.
Only 31 reversed summary judgment for the employer. But only two of the 99 cases affirming summary judgment are published, while nine of the 31 cases reversing summary judgment are published.
This imbalance between published and unpublished opinions could create the misimpression that summary judgment remains disfavored in employment cases, as the courts in Nazir and Abed held.
- The opening line of the dissent: "I’m not sure how we got to this point in the present appeal."
- Our state’s Constitution, our Evidence Code, and our Code of Civil Procedure require us to determine whether evidentiary errors are prejudicial. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; Evid. Code, § 353; Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)
- The majority’s approach is not only wrong on the law, it’s wasteful and unnecessary in the present litigation.
- The implications of the majority opinion are staggering. By treating error on a discretionary evidentiary ruling as reversible per se, the majority read the prejudice requirement out of our Supreme Court precedent (and our Evidence Code and our Code of Civil Procedure and our Constitution).
- To make matters worse, the majority reach their result only by misinterpreting the trial court’s clear ruling. I cannot overstate how deeply I disagree with their treatment of this case. I therefore respectfully dissent.
Friday, June 26, 2020
- We eschew use of an acronym often used to label this motion. (E.g., Yeager v. Holt (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 450, 452.) The acronym grew out of the statute’s initial focus. However, with the blessing of the Legislature and the courts, this statute has been applied in contexts across the litigation spectrum, and the acronym is no longer accurate. The proceeding should simply be called what it is--a special motion to strike.
- Defendant also cites two decisions of the high court—without point cites, a nettlesome practice that foists upon this court the task of finding the part of the opinion that supports its argument—that due process somehow imposes an obligation under section 425.16 to review pleadings for vagueness.
The Administrative Office of the U.S Courts on June 28 will launch a redesigned informational website for the Judiciary’s electronic court records system, known as PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records).
The new PACER website includes features that will make it easier for users to learn how to navigate the system, find what they are looking for more quickly, and understand the fee structure for downloading records. The update is also designed to improve accessibility for people with disabilities.Read more.
Thursday, June 25, 2020
- During his time as a federal trial and appellate judge in Pennsylvania from 1991 to 1999, Timothy Lewis says, “I could count on half of one hand how many Black lawyers argued before me.”
- When Lewis went to private practice, he often served as a moot court judge for appellate practitioners and did not need a hand to count. “I never mooted a Black lawyer,” he said in an interview Tuesday.
- And that is why Lewis, who is African American, jumped at the opportunity to join the advisory board of , a new effort to increase diversity in the prestigious but largely male and white-dominated niche practice of appellate law.