Monday, April 15, 2019

Appellate Proposals out for comment

The Judicial Council’s Appellate Advisory Committee invites comment on 8 proposals by June 10, 2019.


The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes a new rule of court describing the required contents of the normal record on appeal for civil commitment cases and a new notice of appeal form for civil commitment cases. This proposal is in response to a suggestion from a member of this committee and is intended to provide needed guidance to litigants and the courts and ensure that appellate records in civil commitment cases are complete.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes the adoption of a new rule of court governing the form of filed documents in the appellate division. The rule is intended to provide clarity to litigants, court staff, and judges as to the proper formatting of applications, motions, and other documents to be filed in the appellate division. This proposal is in response to a suggestion from a member of this committee.

To promote greater awareness of parents’ and legal guardians’ appellate rights in juvenile court proceedings, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule regarding advisement of appellate rights to remove the limitation that the court need only provide this information to parents and guardians who are present at the hearing that resulted in the judgment or order. The committee also proposes the adoption of a new optional form notice for clerks to send with court orders following a hearing to provide the advisement. This proposal originated with a suggestion from an attorney in San Diego.

To increase efficiency and provide guidance for litigants, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule regarding oral argument in limited civil and misdemeanor appeals to provide that oral argument will not be set in cases presenting no arguable issues and to set forth a procedure for waiving oral argument. The committee also proposes the adoption of two optional forms, one for limited civil cases and one for misdemeanor cases, to assist litigants in waiving
oral argument if they choose to do so. This proposal originated with suggestions from a presiding judge of an appellate division and a member of the committee.

To establish limits on briefing that reflect the limited scope of petitions for rehearing, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes reducing the maximum length of petitions and answers by amending the rule that governs the content and form of briefs in the Court of Appeal. Currently, the rule provides maximum limits of 14,000 words for briefs produced on a computer and 50 pages for briefs produced on a typewriter. These limits apply to all types of briefs, including petitions for rehearing and answers to those petitions. This proposal would provide lower limits of 7,000 words and 25 pages for petitions for rehearing and answers. This proposal arises out of suggestions from appellate practitioners, including a current committee member, that the committee consider reducing word limits for civil briefs in the Court of Appeal.

The Appellate Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee propose amended rules and new and revised forms to implement recent Judicial Council–sponsored legislation amending the statute that specifies who may access and copy records in a juvenile case file in an appeal or writ proceeding challenging a juvenile court order. The statutory amendment clarified that people who are entitled to seek review of certain orders in juvenile proceedings or who are respondents or real parties in interest in such appellate proceedings may, for purposes of those appellate proceedings, access and copy those records to which they were previously given access by the juvenile court. This proposal would implement the legislation by updating the rules relating to juvenile appeals to include provisions relating to persons with limited access to the juvenile case file and the limited record that must be prepared and provided to these persons. The committees also propose a new information sheet and a notice on certain forms regarding the requirement to seek authorization from the juvenile court to access records in the case file before commencing an appeal.

To provide consistency and clarity, the Appellate Advisory Committee and the Information Technology Advisory Committee propose revising California Rules of Court, rules 8.40, 8.44, 8.71, 8.72, 8.74, 8.204, and 8.252 to create uniform formatting rules for electronic documents filed in the appellate courts. The rules currently provide some formatting requirements for electronic documents, but they do not include various local rule requirements such as bookmarking. Moreover, local rules around the state differ in their requirements and scope. By establishing uniform, comprehensive rules for all appellate courts, this proposal will ease the burden on filers caused by differing format rules. This project initially focused on rules for exhibits and bookmarking, but was expanded in scope to include other formatting requirements. It originated from a suggestion by a member of the Joint Appellate Technology Subcommittee of the Appellate Advisory Committee and the Information Technology Advisory Committee.


To update court procedures and provide clarity, the Appellate Advisory Committee and the Information Technology Advisory Committee propose amending the rule regarding petitions for review in the California Supreme Court to remove the requirement to send to the Court of Appeal a separate service copy of an electronically filed petition for review. Under current practice, when a petition for review is accepted for electronic filing by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal automatically receives a filed/endorsed copy of the petition through the electronic filing service provider (EFSP). Thus, in actual practice, the electronic filing of a petition satisfies the requirement to serve the Court of Appeal, and there is no need for a petitioner to serve the Court of Appeal with another copy as required by the rules. This proposal does not change the requirement to serve the Court of Appeal with a separate copy if a petition for review is filed in paper form. This proposal originated from a suggestion submitted by an appellate court administrator.
Posted by at
Labels: