Collateral order appeals re proceeding pseudonymously

If a trial court grants an order allowing parties to proceed using pseudonyms, is that order appealable? Today's opinion from 2/2 here says "yes," reasoning thusly: 

Orders concerning the sealing of documents are appealable as collateral orders. This is true whether the order is to seal or to unseal. An order to redact a document is also appealable as a collateral order. While there is no specific case applying this rule in the context of an order allowing a party to proceed under a pseudonym, we conclude the reasoning is the same. “Much like closing the courtroom or sealing a court record, allowing a party to litigate anonymously impacts a First Amendment public access right.” Here, the order is final on the collateral matter of allowing the parties to proceed with pseudonyms and is not subject to future proceedings.

Old joke in hot dissent...

Law.com has In Scathing Dissent, Judge Says Colleagues Cut Him From Deliberative Process

• In an unusually scathing dissent, federal appellate Judge Jerry Smith on Wednesday accused his colleagues of cutting him out of the deliberative process for a ruling that blocked Texas Republicans’ redrawn congressional maps that were backed by President Donald Trump.
• Sitting on a three-judge district court panel, Smith used his 104-page dissent to contend that U.S. District Judges Jeffrey Brown and David Guaderrama had purposefully published their majority decision on Tuesday without waiting for Smith's dissent or giving him enough time to complete it.
• In his dissent, Smith accused Brown of deciding the case based on his policy preferences rather than the law and of going beyond his authority as a federal judge.
• “In 37 years as a federal judge, I’ve served on hundreds of three-judge panels. This is the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed,” Smith wrote in the dissent filled with barbs against Brown.
• “There’s the old joke: What’s the difference between God and a federal district judge?" Smith added. "Answer: God doesn’t think he’s a federal judge.”

2d District window closure Dec. 10 (noon to 2)

The Clerk’s Office window will be closed on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, from 12:00 PM PST to 2:00 PM PST. A drop box on the 2nd floor, next to the Clerk’s Office at 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, will be available for the public to drop off documents.

CEB titles to leave Lexis

CEB has two treatises used by CA appellate lawyers: California Civil Appellate Practice (3d ed. 2 volumes) and California Civil Writ Practice (4th ed. 2 volumes). These will be leaving Lexis soon:

This is a reminder that after December 31, 2025, CEB’s California-specific content will be removed from LexisNexis. If you currently rely on LexisNexis to access CEB’s trusted California law resources, that access will end. To avoid disruptions, now is the time to transition to OnLAW Pro — CEB’s exclusive legal research and practical guidance platform.

Lexis, of course, has the 2-volume Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Civil Appeals & Writs (by Klatchko & Shatz)  

2/6 to hold ACE session

Court of Appeal to Hold Education Program for High School Students -- On Thursday, the Second Appellate District, Division Six (Ventura), will hold a special oral argument outreach session for high school students.

Also, the Bar Association of San Francisco’s Appellate and Criminal Justice Sections are hosting an in-person CLE program on the US Supreme Court Criminal Law Roundup. Speakers are Professors Jeffrey Fisher, from Stanford, and Kate Weisburd, from UC Law SF. One hour of appellate specialization credit. It’s the Monday after Thanksgiving, December 1, from 5:00 – 6:15 p.m., at the McGuire Woods firm in San Francisco. Stick around to network after the program.

funny glitch...

In a funny glitch, new Justice Arlan Harrell's online bio is appearing on every District's "Justices" webpage, not just the 5th District's! Talk about pro teming!

4/2 publishes order re AI sanctions

Yesterday 4/2 published this order imposing sanctions on a lawyer who cited AI hallucinated cases (i.e., cases that do not exist) in a petition for writ of supersedeas and in an AOB. The court orders sanctions of $1,750 and directs the clerk to notify the State Bar about the sanctions.

The MetNews article is Lawyer Sanctioned for ‘Spurious Citations’ in Petition, Brief

Trump v. Biden appointees article

Law.com has Trump Judges Outdo Biden Appointees in Total Opinions, Out-of-Circuit Cites, Study Finds

President Donald Trump’s federal appellate appointees produced more opinions and were cited outside of their circuits more frequently than former President Joe Biden's appointees, according to a study measuring the performance of young judges in a two-year period.

A preliminary draft of the study analyzed the performance of all federal judges under age 55 who were active between January 2023 and December 2024, using total opinions as a measure of productivity and out-of-circuit citations as a measure of influence, among other data points.

3 new justices confirmed today!

Commission Confirms Three Appointments to Courts of Appeal
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, chair of the Commission on Judicial Appointments, announced today that the commission confirmed three appointments to California's Courts of Appeal in Los Angeles, Riverside, and Fresno:

• Matthew Scherb, as associate justice of the Second Appellate District, Division Eight (Los Angeles)
• Judge Corey Lee, as associate justice of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (Riverside)
• Judge Arlan L. Harrell, as associate justice of the Fifth Appellate District (Fresno)

The appointees were confirmed by unanimous vote of the three-member commission, which includes: California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero (Chair); California Attorney General Rob Bonta; Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert (for the Second Appellate District); Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez (for the Fourth Appellate District); and Administrative Presiding Justice Brad R. Hill (for the Fifth Appellate District).

Appellate gotchas

The DJ has Myron Moskovitz's "Appellate gotcha" columns (Nov. 3 & 17) -- Appellate work involves diving into the record, crafting strategies and briefs, and arguing tough cases, all in the pursuit of justice for clients, while navigating "gotchas" that can unfairly block valid arguments.

Gotcha #1 -- The most common gotcha is "That wasn't raised in the trial court, so it's forfeited." "Forfeited" (not "waived," which is tougher to show). It's understandable -- but frequently misunderstood.

Gotcha #2 -- "You didn't make that argument in your opening brief, so you can't make it for the first time in your reply brief." Why not? Because it would be "unfair" to the respondent.

Gotcha #3 -- At oral argument, the presiding justice intones: "You can't argue that now, counsel. It wasn't in your briefs."

this gotcha seems strange, because I often hear appellate justices themselves come up with new ideas at oral argument that were discussed in none of the briefs. The justices are trying hard to reach a just result, and the parties' briefs didn't take them there. So, the court goes off on its own and they use that argument in their opinion.

There's nothing illegal or wrong about this. It's exactly what appellate justices should be doing. With one caveat: when the justices themselves are about to decide the appeal on an unbriefed issue, it's only fair that they ask counsel for supplemental briefing on it, or at least issue a tentative opinion or focus letter giving counsel a chance to deal with it at oral argument.

Myron's view is: "gotchas should not be employed unless the injustice inflicted on a party by refusing to consider the argument is outweighed by some serious burden on the opposing party or the court." "Gotchas are roadblocks on the path to justice. They should be erected sparingly -- only where a no less draconian remedy is available."

Goldstein article

Washingtonian magazine has an article on Tom Goldstein: How a Top DC Lawyer and High-Stakes Poker Player Risks Losing It All -- Star Supreme Court lawyer and commentator Tom Goldstein lived a double life as a ultra-high-stakes poker player—and is now fighting federal charges for alleged financial crimes. Why did one of Washington’s most successful attorneys risk it all to play cards?

Goldstein seemed to have it all. He was married to his college sweetheart, lawyer Amy Howe, with whom he shared two young children and a $2 million home in Chevy Chase. Not yet 40, he already had argued 19 Supreme Court cases and was regarded as an influential legal mind, with law professorships at Stanford and Harvard. A sought-after commentator, he would soon also become acclaimed for SCOTUSblog, the scrappy news website that he and Howe built into a media phenomenon. Eventually, he’d go on to argue 45 cases before the high court, among the most of any contemporary private lawyer.

Goldstein accomplished all this despite being cut from a different cloth than most of Washington’s legal elite. He never attended an Ivy League school, clerked for a Supreme Court justice, or spent years climbing the ladder at a high-powered firm. Instead, he carved his own path, cold-calling early clients and working for next to nothing as he built his practice. Away from courtrooms, he posted self-­deprecating YouTube videos, drove sports cars, and relished his status as a colorful Washington personality.

Today, Goldstein is in trouble. Following a lengthy federal investigation, a grand jury in January indicted the 55-year-old lawyer on 22 counts for tax evasion and other financial crimes, charges that largely stemmed from his alleged concealment of millions of dollars in poker winnings. Documents from the case also reveal the extent to which Goldstein was living a double life as an ultra-high-stakes player—allegedly taking on millions in gambling loans as he pursued multiple extra­marital affairs, spent lavishly, and jet-setted around the world.

And here's the pretrial motions order. 

Learn the new SOD process

Alameda County Bar Assn Appellate Section presents Kelly Woodruff and Claudia Ribet's zoom program:
Navigating the Complex Statement of Decision Process in the Trial and Appellate Courts
Wednesday, November 19, 12:00 PM - 01:00 PM

When a case tried as a bench trial is on appeal, the most important document to the court of appeal is the trial court’s statement of decision. Yet as anyone who has ever dealt with the rules governing statements of decision knows, the process is exacting and the rules are confusing and in some ways contradictory. The panelists will walk you through each subdivision of California Rule of Court 3.1590 and provide a roadmap of how best to navigate the rule to best protect your client’s interests. They will also talk about appellate consequences when a party fails to comply with the rule.

Call for Appellate Attorneys to handle Capital Appeals

The California Supreme Court is seeking qualified attorneys to accept appointment in capital appeals. These cases represent some of the most complex, consequential, and intellectually demanding work in the criminal legal system—and offer a chance to make a meaningful contribution to justice in California. This work is compensated at pre-set hourly rates. For more information and to apply, please check out CAP-SF’s website: https://www.capsf.org/public/Announcements/2025/recruitment.aspx

9th Cir. post-shutdown calendaring for federally funded attys

Order Resetting Deadlines Stayed by Order of October 1, 2025

On November 12, 2025, the President signed H.R. 5371, a Continuing Resolution that funds the federal government through January 30, 2026. Accordingly, the court resets, as follows, the nonjurisdictional filing deadlines for federally funded attorneys (including FPDs and CJA counsel), in cases not currently calendared before a panel:

•  Any filing due on or after November 24, 2025, remains as currently scheduled.

•  Any filing that was due between October 1 and October 10, 2025, is now due December 3, 2025.

•  Any filing that was due between October 11 and October 20, 2025, is now due December 10, 2025.

•  Any filing that was due between October 21 and November 1, 2025, is now due December 17, 2025.

•  Any filing that was due between November 2 and November 12, 2025, is now due December 23, 2025.

•  Any filing that was due between November 13 and November 21, 2025, is now due January 2, 2026.

After a federally funded attorney files a brief by the extended deadline set by this order, the deadlines for subsequent briefs in that case are governed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, as modified by the local rules of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any pending motions to stay or extend the deadlines that have been reset by this order are moot.

Appellate sanctions imposed

4/3 awards appellate sanctions in this unpub for unreasonably violating the rules of court:

• counsel’s extensive reliance on unpublished opinions, inaccurate quotations from the cases cited, and failure to properly cite supporting evidence in the record justifies the imposition of sanctions. ARC’s opening brief cites three unpublished cases, and its reply brief cites an additional three. Absent specific circumstances not applicable here, a party may not cite an unpublished opinion.
• Multiple citations to the appellate record are improper.
• Further, most if not all record citations in ARC’s brief were to incorrect pages from the appellate record.

The court remands to the trial court to determine "the appropriate amount of an award of sanctions" to compensate respondent, and to decide whether sanctions should be awarded against the appellant, appellate counsel, or both.

[11/91/25 update: the DJ has Gerard Fox faces sanctions for citing unpublished cases in appeal]

1st DCA pro tem update

Judge Ann Moorman of the Mendocino County Superior Court will be sitting pro tempore in Division Four until December 31, 2025. 

December early closure notices

The 3d District announces: Early Closure of Clerk's Office on December 11, 2025

This is public notice that the Clerk’s Office for the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, will close at 3:30 p.m., Thursday, December 11, 2025. This includes both telephone and the filing window located on Fourth Floor of the Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building. Normal hours, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily, for both telephone and filing window will resume on Friday, December 12, 2025.

The 6th District posts: Court Closure Announcement

The Clerk’s Office window will be closed on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, from 11:00 AM PST to 3:00 PM PST. The drop box on the 10th floor, next to the Clerk’s Office at 333 West Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA, will be available for the public to drop off documents.

Veterans Day

Today's DJ has a dozen veterans-related articles, including some of appellate interest:

Judges reflect on the harrowing experiences of women who served in war -- Fifty years after the Vietnam War, Justice Eileen C. Moore and Judge David O. Carter shared personal accounts of combat, courage, and the long-overlooked role of women at a World Affairs Council event in Newport Harbor -- revealing memories of trauma, resilience, and honor that still shape their lives and service on the bench.

At a recent World Affairs Council program held at the American Legion Post 291 in Newport Harbor, 4th District Court of Appeal Associate Justice Eileen C. Moore and U.S. District Judge David O. Carter stood before a silent audience and told stories one listener called "the most appalling presentation" he had ever heard -- not for what they did, but for what the nation didn't.

The DJ also has Justice Moore's article From Normandy to the bench: Justice Buck Compton's life of service

On Veterans Day, the California Courts of Appeal have reason to feel a personal connection. Among their ranks is a true hero: Justice Buck Compton. As a young man, Compton was one of the Band of Brothers in E Company, aka Easy Company, part of the 101st Airborne Division, heralded by historian Stephen Ambrose. For his heroic actions on June 6, 1944, D-Day, Compton received the Silver Star. ....

In 1970, Reagan appointed Compton directly to the Second District Court of Appeal, where he served until 1990.

Nonexistent cases? Appeal dismissed.

See the unpub'd decision here, where 2/5 dismisses the appeal of a pro per who: "After citing nonexistent cases in opposition to the demurrer in the trial court, which were brought to his attention, he cited nonexistent cases again in his briefs on appeal."

And see this published opinion from 4/3 about joint and several liability for sanctions and who has to appeal or not.

And here's a unpub from 2/1 dismissing an appeal because: "An order denying permission to substitute a defendant’s name for the Doe designation under section 340.1 is not listed among the appealable orders under section 904.1, nor does plaintiff identify any other statute rendering the order appealable."

CJP Dec. 1 hearing

Today's DJ has Hearing set for retired justice accused of delaying 100s of cases -- A Commission on Judicial Performance hearing begins Dec. 1 in Sacramento for retired 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice William J. Murray Jr., accused of willful misconduct for long delays in issuing decisions over a decade.

• The commission said in a notice in June that over a 10-year period, 355 cases were delayed one to nine years after being fully briefed or assigned to Murray.
• The hearing at the Sacramento County Superior Court will be conducted by special masters Justice Maurice Sanchez of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 3; retired Los Angeles County judge Anthony J. Mohr and retired Orange County judge B. Tam Nomoto Schumann.

The DJ also has Former Justice Cuéllar reflects on court tenure, diplomacy, and 'Kabuki' confirmations --Speaking before his former colleagues, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar said the skills of judging and diplomacy share an "unmistakable crossover" and criticized federal confirmation hearings as overly performative.

Law360 has Joshua Sohn's Why Appellees Should Write Their Answering Brief First

• The most important reason for writing your answering brief first is that your opponent's opening brief will structure the facts and legal arguments in a way that most benefits their side. If you read their brief before drafting your own, it's easy to subconsciously adopt their structure and find yourself playing defense against each of their points.
• By contrast, if you draft your answering brief first, you can present the facts and law in a way that most benefits your side, without being distracted by the appellant's presentation of the case.
• Give it a try: You'll be pleasantly surprised by how well it works, and how little you end up having to change your draft answering brief after you see what the appellant actually filed.
• writing your answering brief first means crafting a brief that makes an affirmative, stand-alone case for why the judgment below was correct and should be affirmed. Once you have that affirmative structure and text in place, you can think about what arguments the appellant is likely to make, and you can write in rebuttals to those arguments, generally placing the rebuttals after each of your affirmative points.
• there are other benefits to writing your answering brief first. One benefit involves timing — when you write your answering brief first, you can begin working on it as soon as the appeal commences.

Bloomberg Law has Trump Changes How Judicial Nominees Get Publicly Revealed

The Trump administration has narrowed the window between when judicial nominees get publicly announced and when they appear at their confirmation hearings, cutting short the time outside groups have to vet these lifetime appointments.
As little as two days has elapsed between announcement and Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for some of President Donald Trump’s nominees this year, compared to the typical 28 days that elapsed in prior administrations.

The CA Judicial Council has posted the 2026 California Courts Calendar -- Keep track of court holidays, council meetings, and Supreme Court oral argument dates by downloading the 2026 Calendar.