Judge Milan Smith Q&A

I have no present intention
of ever going senior or retiring. 

Today's DJ has William Domnarski's Q&A with 9th Circuit Judge Milan Smith:

• I have ... long admired the integrity and courage of Justice John Marshall Harlan (1833-1911), the great dissenter of the 19th century. Although he was clearly out of touch with the zeitgeist of his era, and may not have been the most gifted member of the Supreme Court in its long history (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. told his law clerk, Dean Acheson, that Justice Harlan's "mind was like a vise, the jaws of which did not meet. It only held the larger objects"), he had a clear moral compass, which led him to write some of the most important dissents ever written on the Supreme Court, many of which have ultimately led to important legal reforms in our time. Among others, he wrote stirring dissents in the Civil Rights Cases, Plessy v. Ferguson and Lochner v. New York.


• Because almost all 9th Circuit judges come into oral argument having read the briefs, important parts of the record, and the underlying cases, statutes, or regulations, they have essentially reached a tentative conclusion before they ever hear counsel argue their cases. Accordingly, I believe that the writing of persuasive briefs is the most important thing an appellate lawyer does. I believe that the primary purpose of oral argument is to answer the questions that judges may have about your case that were not answered fully in the briefs. If you have a problem issue, try your best to answer it in your oral presentation. Trying to hide the ball will not help you because the judges almost certainly know about the problem, and have likely formed an opinion before argument about its effect on your case. When asked a question about your problem, try to answer it in a straight-forward conversational manner, and be prepared to respond to questions about the impact of contrary cases, and what the record shows about your issue. Most importantly, don't misrepresent anything to the court, such as what a case means, or what the record reflects. If you are perceived as a prevaricator, it is likely that no significant part of your message will be believed.

Also of significance: The Western Center on Law & Poverty does the world a service by posting Brief Writing Tips from Richard Rothschild (Part 1).

4/3 back in the courtroom Sept. 20

Effective September 20, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three, is restoring in-person arguments considering updated state and local public health guidance. In accordance with state and local public health guidance, face coverings in the courthouse will be required for all visitors regardless of vaccination status. Those who are fully vaccinated may remove their masks only while presenting oral argument. Until further notice, the courtroom is open only to those parties presenting oral argument. While in-person argument will return as the default method of appearance, in extraordinary cases permission to appear remotely may be granted by the Presiding Justice.

(4th Dist. Div. 1 announced last month that it will be resuming in person arguments in August.)

Over in Chicago, the 7th Circuit announces it will resume in-person argument effective September 1.

Are 'too cute' opinions unprofessional?

In A Rule Against Fun, Richard Re reviews a forthcoming law review article: Nina Varsava, Professional Irresponsibility and Judicial Opinions,  __ Hous. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming, 2021), available at SSRN), https://courtslaw.jotwell.com/a-rule-against-fun/.

Calming the cultural storm

Today's DJ has a piece by retired 3d DCA Justice George Nicholson, titled Lawyers and Judges: Mitigating Public Demonization and Division, about the special themed issue of Journal of Appellate Practice and Process (vol. 21, issue 2).

The theme of the special issue is "what ails and divides our people and afflicts our nation, and what we in the law, especially state, tribal, and federal appellate and supreme court judges, may do to help to mitigate, better yet, ameliorate those ailments and afflictions?"

6th DCA amends e-filing rule

The Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District has approved amendments to Local Rule 2, Electronic Filing.  Pursuant to rule 10.1030, the rule will be printed in Advance Pamphlet No. 19, Issue Date August 3, 2021 and would become effective as of September 20, 2021. Click here to read the amended rule.

The existing rule, Local Rule 2 (from 2018), is here. The 2021 amendments seems to update the rule without making any particularly noteworthy changes.

Dino-mite!

Today's DJ has Justice Hoffstadt's 'Jurassic' Wisdom:

Traditionally, questions reviewed by appellate courts fall into one of three categories: (1) questions of law, (2) questions of fact, or (3) mixed questions of law and fact.

Questions of law call upon an appellate court to decide what the law is. Appellate courts do not defer to a trial court's rulings on questions of law, and thus employ the nondeferential "de novo" standard of review. People v. Waidla, 22 Cal. 4th 690, 730 (2000). Why? Because appellate courts have "'several'" "'[s]tructural[]'" "'advantages over trial courts in deciding questions of law'" -- chiefly, they have more time to consider such questions and they sit in three- or seven-judge panels (and multiple heads are better than one). People v. Louis, 42 Cal. 3d 969, 986 (1986), superseded on other grounds, People v. Mickey, 54 Cal. 3d 612 (1991); People v. Haworth, 50 Cal. 4th 372, 384 (2010). De novo review also allows appellate courts to speak more freely and thus unify precedent. United States v. Ornelas, 517 U.S. 690, 697-98 (1996).

Questions of fact call upon an appellate court to review the trial court's findings regarding "historical" facts (that is, what happened) and questions of credibility. People v. Cromer, 24 Cal. 4th 889, 900 (2001); Haworth at 384. Appellate courts generally defer to a trial court's findings of fact, and thus employ the deferential "substantial evidence" standard of review. Haworth at 384. Under this standard, a finding of historical fact must be affirmed unless, when the record is viewed in the light most favorable to that finding, there is no "reasonable, credible evidence" to permit a "reasonable trier of fact" to make that finding, People v. Barnwell, 41 Cal. 4th 1038, 1052 (2007); In re George T., 33 Cal. 4th 620, 630-31 (2004), and a credibility finding cannot be "reevaluat[ed]" and must be affirmed unless the content of the witness's testimony was "physically impossible" or its truth or falsity evident without resort to inferences or deductions, People v. D'Arcy, 48 Cal. 4th 257, 293 (2010); People v. Mayberry, 15 Cal. 3d 143, 150 (1975). Importantly, this deference traditionally applies "whether the trial court's [factual finding] is based on oral testimony or declarations." Shamblin v. Brattain, 44 Cal. 3d 474, 479 (1988); Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. 4th 706, 711 (2008).

Why this level of deference to a trial court's factual findings? The answer is twofold. First, trial courts -- at least vis-à-vis appellate courts -- "are in a better position" to "evaluate and weigh the evidence" and "to assess witness credibility." Haraguchi at 713; Haworth at 385. Second, tasking the trial courts with making factual findings relieves appellate courts of "the burden of a full-scale independent review and evaluation of the evidence," thereby "conserving" their time for the legal issues "that appellate courts ... are best situated to decide." Louis at 986; Haworth at 385.

Mixed questions of law and fact "concern the application of the rule to the facts and the consequent determination whether the rule is satisfied." Haworth at 384. Whether appellate courts will defer to a trial court's ruling on a mixed question depends upon whether it is "predominantly legal" (that is, when the question "requires a critical consideration, in a factual context, of legal principles and their underlying values") or "predominantly factual" (that is, when the question turns on "the application of the fact-finding tribunal's experience with the mainsprings of human conduct" or "human affairs"). Crocker Nat'l Bank v. City & County of San Francisco, 49 Cal. 3d 881, 888 (1989); Louis at 987; Waidla at 730-31. Appellate courts review the former independently, and the latter solely for substantial evidence. Haworth at 385; Crocker at 888.

SCOTUS returning to pre-Covid ways

Bloomberg Law has Supreme Court Restores Filing Rules, Other Covid Limits Remain: 

• Court recinds 150-day filing extension to seek high court review
• No word on when court will reopen to lawyers, public

The 150-day extension for filing new requests for Supreme Court review put in place in March 2020 will no longer apply for cases decided on or after July 19, according to a two-page order released on Monday. Additionally, an April 2020 order seeking to limit paper filings will be lifted on Sept. 1.

Also U.S. Supreme Court Advocates Hesitant to Force Change on Justices

[7/21/21: Law360 has Supreme Court Rescinds COVID-19 Filing Extensions]

Appellate tidbits

• 
  In Eisenberg v. Third District Court of Appeal, S269691, the Supreme Court today asked for an informal response to the writ petition (by August 9).
  
“Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justice Carol Corrigan hereby recuse themselves from participating in the matter,” stated a Friday docket entry in Eisenberg v. Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, S269691 (Cal. Sup. Ct., filed July 6, 2021). See 2 Justices recuse themselves from case on 3rd District Delays in the DJ [7/20/21].
• Congrats to GMSR's Bob Olson who is receiving the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel's Hall of Fame Award (on Sept. 16).
• Law.com has In-Person Oral Arguments Still in Limbo as Justices Begin Their Return to Normalcy
• Today's DJ's Moskovitz on Appeal column is On Aggressive Trial Court Briefs, in which Myron shares a summary of his approach to appellate brief writing:

• Explain things very clearly (for readers who presumably know nothing about the case until you tell them);
• Focus on the justice of your cause, not just the law;
• Persuade with the facts and policy, rather than vague rhetoric and strong words;
• Never attack opposing counsel. Attack his arguments, but go easy on the adjectives (like "absurd");
• Keep it as short as possible, by omitting everything that does not contribute to persuading the court.

He, She, They

Justice Robie pens a short concurrence here, which begins: 

I concur fully in the majority opinion but write separately to express further thoughts on the use of pronouns. One’s name or the pronoun that represents that name is the most personal expression of one’s self. To not call one by the name one prefers or the pronoun one prefers, is simply rude, insulting, and cruel. The impact of using inappropriate pronouns is even more offensive and hurtful when it occurs in an environment where one cannot choose the persons with whom one associates. 

Also of note today is this published opinion here, noting:

Although we do not take lightly the countervailing public interest in obtaining access to public records, and we recognize the vital role that the news media plays in obtaining and disseminating information in a time of crisis, the County has convincingly shown that the value of its ability to conduct effective contact tracing in the midst of a deadly pandemic clearly outweighs the public’s interest in obtaining information about the exact outbreak locations.  

State Stats are out!

 

The 2021 Court Statistics Report on Statewide Caseload Trends is now out and available here!

These stats come with this disclaimer: FISCAL YEAR 2019 -20 DATA WERE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AS COURTS OPERATIONS WERE LIMITED BETWEEN MARCH AND JUNE 2020.

Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court issued 78 written opinions during the year.

• Filings totaled 6,470, and dispositions totaled 6,417.

• Automatic appeals arising out of judgments of death totaled 5 cases, and the court disposed of 17 such appeals by written opinion.

• The Supreme Court ordered 26 Court of Appeal opinions depublished in this fiscal year. (See page 23)

11% of all petitions for review were granted. More specifically 4% for civil appeals and 13% for criminal appeals. See Table 1 on page 16 for details.

Courts of Appeal

• Total contested matters for the Courts of Appeal totaled 17,889, made up of 12,043 records of appeal and 5,846 original proceedings.

• Dispositions in the Courts of Appeal totaled 20,772. Of these dispositions, 14,748 were appeals and 6,024 were original proceedings.

• Dispositions of appeals by written opinion totaled 8,736, appeals disposed of without written opinion totaled 3,847, and appeals disposed of without a record filed totaled 2,256. Dispositions of original proceedings by written opinion totaled 338, and original proceedings disposed of without written opinion totaled 5,818.

• Statewide, 9 percent of Court of Appeal majority opinions were published.

Ventura (2/6) comes out on top for median civil appeal time at 480 days. The Statewide average is 567 days, with the Sixth in last place at 937 days (the 3d is second to last at 749 days, not that far behind the 5th at 738 days). (See Figure 33 on page 36.)

The Statewide average for publication of a civil appeal is 18%, with the First and Third most likely to publish (at 26%) and the Fourth least likely (at 14%). (See Fig. 30 on page 35.)

As for dispositions, the civil appeal affirmance rate dropped a point to 78%, the dismissal rate went up a point to 5%, and the reversal rate dropped a point to 17% (See Fig. 25 on page 34).

DJ profiles Justice Danner

Today's DJ profiles the 6th DCA's Justice Danner in Curiosity and Core Legal Skills: Justice Allison Danner taught herself a new field of law.

• she loves legal analysis and legal writing, and has the experience of working as a clerk in two federal appellate courts for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Justice John T. Noonan Jr.
• “I write my own opinions and did that when I was a law clerk” in the late 1990s, she said. “To me, that’s a huge pleasure.”
• Danner’s parents moved to California from her birthplace, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and she grew up in Palo Alto. Her mother is a retired teacher, her sister is a high school teacher in Oakland and her father worked as an engineer. Danner attended Williams College in Massachusetts, worked as a paralegal, then graduated from Stanford Law School in 1997. After her clerkships she started her academic career as a law school lecturer at Stanford. She was a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School from 2001 to 2007 while also teaching at UCLA School of Law and Harvard Law School.

Cute openings from the 9th today

Two entries today from the 9th Circuit in published cases vying for the cutest opening to an opening:

Our First entry is from this opinion:

For over a decade, Bradford Lund — the grandson of Walt Disney — has languished in perhaps the Unhappiest Place on Earth: probate court. Embroiled in a long-running dispute with family members and trustees, Lund has yet to claim a fortune estimated to be worth $200 million.

 And our second entry is this sweet one from this opinion:

The parties find themselves in a sticky situation. Trader Joe’s Company (“Trader Joe’s”) markets its store brand Manuka honey as “100% New Zealand Manuka Honey” or “New Zealand Manuka Honey,” but Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class, claim that because Trader Joe’s Manuka Honey actually consists of only between 57.3% and 62.6% honey derived from Manuka flower nectar, Trader Joe’s engaged in “false, misleading, and deceptive marketing” of its Manuka honey. Stung by these accusations, Trader Joe’s counters ....

Aug. 30 CJA hearings

Commission on Judicial Appointments to Consider Four Appellate Court Nominations
Aug. 30 hearings for the First and Sixth Appellate District nominations will be webcast live from the California Courts Newsroom.

The Commission on Judicial Appointments will hold public hearings on Aug. 30 beginning at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court Courtroom—350 McAllister Street in San Francisco—to consider the following nominations by Governor Gavin Newsom:

• Justice Alison M. Tucher, as Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division 3 (San Francisco)
• Justice Teri L. Jackson, as Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division 5 (San Francisco)
• Judge Cynthia C. Lie, as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District (San Jose)
• Judge Charles E. Wilson II, as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District (San Jose)

The Commission members are:

• Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye (Chair)
• Attorney General Rob Bonta
• Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline (for First Appellate District appointees) or
• Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood (for Sixth Appellate District appointees)

The hearings will be webcast live on the California Courts Newsroom.

Rising SCOTUS Bonuses

Law.com reports: Signing Bonuses for Supreme Court Clerks Are Set for Another Jump -- Law firms’ lucrative signing bonuses for U.S. Supreme Court clerks may rise again this year, with some anticipating a jump to $450,000.

And see A Supreme Court Fall 'Wish List': In-Person Arguments, Real-Time Audio and More Justice Thomas

The Recorder also has COVID-19: How California Courts Are Preparing for Post-Pandemic Operations, which includes an interactive chart listing the status at various courts. In addition to noting "in-person proceedings in August in certain divisions" of the 4th District, the chart also notes that for the 5th District: in-person oral arguments scheduled to resume this fall.

Beginning July 15, 2021, the Clerk’s Office in Los Angeles for the Second District Court of Appeal will open to the public by appointment only. Click the link to Schedule an Appointment on the Online Booking Portal.

The July 2021 issue of Litigation Update is now online, keeping you up to date on current case law.

The 37th Labor and Employment Law Section Annual Meeting Thursday, July 15 @ 8:00 am – Friday, July 16 @ 5:00 pm. The CLA Labor and Employment Executive Committee is excited to present this year’s virtual Annual Meeting. Programs include topics on artificial intelligence and the workforce, emerging wage and hour trends arising from tele-working, and a judges’ panel with Justice Joshua P. Groban of the California Supreme Court and Judge Kenneth K. Lee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, moderated by retired Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 

"Endlessly Interesting"

Today's DJ profile is The Appeal of Appeals: Justice Marla J. Miller views each case as a present:

"The opportunity to really delve into an issue, to think, to write, to come to conclusions with other people, that really appealed to me" 

When it comes to thorny questions of criminal law, Miller is a go-to source, said Justice Therese M. Stewart, Miller's colleague in the court's Division 2 in San Francisco. ... "She has a sense of those things." That sense comes from Miller's experience in prosecutorial roles and nearly 10 years on the San Francisco County Superior Court. Before becoming a judge, Miller worked at Howard Rice, as a prosecutor in the general crimes division in the Northern District of California U.S. attorney's office, briefly in the San Francisco County district attorney's office, and at Morrison & Foerster.

Miller, who was appointed to the appellate court by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2014, said she knew she had an interest in becoming an appellate judge when she clerked for 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Charles M. Merrill in her first job after graduating from Harvard Law School in 1980.

Off the bench, Miller serves on three influential committees: the Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics, the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions and the Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions.

Also of note in todays' DJ: Dean Chemerinsky's Don't underestimate the conservatism of the Roberts court: The U.S. Supreme Court's October 2020 term which ended on July 2 should be seen as a reminder of the basic reality: It is a very conservative court and will be for a long time to come.

And Judge Karnow explores properly pleading on "information and belief" and pleading affirmative defenses in Pleading Treasure, which itself is a treasure of an article. Don't miss this one!

And see fn. 2 here for a cute way to introduce abbreviations: “Welcome to—and apologies for—the acronymic world of federal legislation.”

 

Fastcase 50 honors Justice Chin

Fastcase has announced the 2021 Fastcase 50 award winners, one of whom is retired Justice Chin! 

Honoring the law’s smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, & leaders. Lawyer or nonlawyer, techie or nontechie

Ming W. Chin
Justice (ret.), California Supreme Court

The son of Chinese immigrants, Ming W. Chin became the court’s first Chinese American justice in 1996, when he was appointed by Governor Pete Wilson. He authored more than 350 majority opinions during his time on the bench, leaving behind a distinguished judicial legacy. An early proponent of innovation, Justice Chin chaired the court’s Technology Advisory Committee for a decade, providing intellectual and administrative leadership to help the courts embrace technological change and expand access to justice. As one colleague put it, “When it comes to court technology, there has been no more consistent champion than Justice Chin.”  A renowned expert on forensic DNA evidence, Justice Chin has led efforts to increase judicial training and education on scientific issues. He is also the author of two California practice guides published by the Rutter Group: Employment Litigation and Forensic DNA Evidence: Science and the Law. Colleagues describe Justice Chin as a continuing source of inspiration and a model of judicial excellence, intellectual clarity, and unwavering collegiality. As a colleague observed when the court paid tribute to Justice Chin before his final oral argument: “In every generation, the law depends on intellects like Ming Chin, to understand the evolving present and to help guide the law into its future. It is impossible to imagine the evolution of California law without the influence of Ming Chin – fortunately, we don’t have to.”

Driving James Joyce nuts?

Today's DJ has Gilbert Submits, in which PJ Gilbert asks, "Does a broad-based education in the humanities lead to a more educated educated-guess?" See How to Drive James Joyce Nuts

Just think if James Joyce were writing his magnum opus "Finnegans Wake" today on a computer, auto correct would drive him over the edge. I began reading "Finnegans Wake" 50 years ago. I am still working on the first paragraph. I am doing the same trying to figure out the recent changes in the sentencing law.

Appellate Appointments!

Governor Gavin Newsom today announced his nomination of four Court of Appeal Justices: Justice Alison M. Tucher as Presiding Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division Three; Justice Teri L. Jackson as Presiding Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division Five; Judge Cynthia C. Lie as an Associate Justice of the Sixth District Court of Appeal; and Judge Charles E. Wilson II as an Associate Justice of the Sixth District Court of Appeal.

 

Justice Alison M. Tucher, 58, of Berkeley, has been nominated to serve as Presiding Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division Three. She has served as an Associate Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division Four since 2018. Justice Tucher served as a Judge at the Alameda County Superior Court from 2014 to 2018. She was a Partner at Morrison and Foerster from 2004 to 2014 and a Litigation Associate there from 1998 to 2003. She served as a Deputy District Attorney at the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office from 1995 to 1998 and was Assistant Director of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s White House Security Review Team from 1994 to 1995. Justice Tucher served as a Law Clerk for the Honorable David H. Souter at the U.S. Supreme Court and for the Honorable William A. Norris at the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from Stanford Law School and a Master of Arts degree in engineering from the University of Cambridge. Justice Tucher fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Peter J. Siggins. This position requires the completion of a review by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Senior Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline. Justice Tucher is a Democrat.

 

 

Justice Teri L. Jackson, 64, of San Mateo, has been nominated to serve as Presiding Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division Five. She has served as an Associate Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division Three since 2019. Justice Jackson served as a Judge at the San Francisco County Superior Court from 2002 to 2019. She was Of Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP from 1997 to 2002 and served as an Assistant District Attorney in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office from 1984 to 1997. She served as a Deputy District Attorney in the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office from 1981 to 1984. Justice Jackson was an Adjunct Professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law from 2006 to 2019 and at the University of San Francisco School of Law from 2004 to 2019. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the Georgetown University Law Center. Justice Jackson fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Barbara J.R. Jones. This position requires the completion of a review by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Senior Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline. Justice Jackson is a Democrat.

Sixth District Court of Appeal

 

 

 

Judge Cynthia C. Lie, 53, of Oakland, has been nominated to serve as an Associate Justice of the Sixth District Court of Appeal. She has served as a Judge in the Santa Clara County Superior Court since 2015. Judge Lie served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender at the San Jose Branch of the Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern District of California from 2003 to 2014. She served as a Staff Attorney at the City and County of San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints from 2002 to 2003 and was a Sole Practitioner from 2001 to 2003. Judge Lie was a Litigation Associate at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton LLP in 2000 and served as a Deputy Public Defender at the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office from 1995 to 2000. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Nathan D. Mihara. This position requires the completion of a review by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Senior Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood. Judge Lie is registered without party preference.

 

 

 

Judge Charles E. Wilson II, 46, of East Palo Alto, has been nominated to serve as an Associate Justice of the Sixth District Court of Appeal. He has served as a Judge at the Santa Clara County Superior Court since 2014. Judge Wilson served as a Deputy District Attorney at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office from 2007 to 2014. He was an Associate at Gordon and Rees LLP from 2003 to 2007 and at Phillips, Spallas and Angstadt in 2003. Judge Wilson earned Juris Doctor and Master of Business Administration degrees from the University of San Francisco. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Eugene M. Premo. This position requires the completion of a review by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation and confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Senior Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood. Judge Wilson is a Democrat.

 

The compensation for each of these positions is $245,578.

See The Recorder's Newsom Nominates 4 to Fill Vacancies on Bay Area Appellate Courts

On the superior court front of appellate note: Michelle Kazadi, an ALJ on the CA Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board was appointed to LASC; Eric Wersching, who clerked for 9th Cir. Judge Brunetti (2003-04), was appointed to OCSC; A. Marisa Chun, who clerked for 9th Cir. Judge Boochever (1991-92), was appointed to SFSC; and Nichole Healy, who was in the Appellate Section of the EDVA US Atty's office, was appointed to San Mateo SC.

"OT20: It's a Wrap"

That's the title of today's DJ article by Dykema's Jimmy Azadian and Becky James, recapping the last SCOTUS term in which the Court "heard 58 oral arguments and issued 67 merits opinions, reversing the lower court in almost half of those cases." "Comprising almost a quarter of the court's docket this term were 16 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cases. The court reversed in all of those cases except one. But other circuits with multiple cases before the Supreme Court scored even poorer percentage-wise, with the court reversing in 100% of the cases it decided from the 4th, 6th, 10th and D.C. Circuits."

Also in today's DJ Attorney says client harmed by 3rd District delay.

LASC fined re COVID-19

Law360 reports LA County Court Fined $25K For COVID-19 Safety Violations

The Los Angeles County Superior Court was fined more than $25,000 on Wednesday by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which said it found three violations related to COVID-19 safety protocols after responding to a complaint that lax practices led to a court interpreter's death.

See LASC News Release: CAL/OSHA ISSUES REPORT FOLLOWINGINVESTIGATION AT FOLTZ COURTHOUSE

The Recorder has LA Court Leaders Vow to Appeal Citation for COVID-19 Workplace Violations