The UCL Practitioner

Happy New Year!

A belated happy holidays and an early happy new year to all who may be watching this space! I will be taking a short break from blogging, resuming during the week of January 4th.

Google Scholar now offering free online case law

My favorite online source for free case law has been Findlaw.com.  Bulk.resource.org is also a very good source for federal material.  And now we have Google Scholar.  I tried searching for "In re Tobacco II Cases," and it gave me the original Court of Appeal opinion from 2006, not the Supreme Court's opinion.  However, it worked great when I typed in the citation.  Another drawback is that there seems to be no static permalink for cases, which the other two online sources both have. 

The main page is http://scholar.google.com/ and you have to select the "legal opinions and journals" button.  [Via California Labor and Employment Blog.]

Santa Clara County Counsel Impact Litigation and Social Justice Fellowship, 2010-2011

The Impact Litigation and Social Justice Section of the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office is accepting applications for a one-year Fellowship beginning next September.  "The Section does a good deal of interesting consumer protection work to safeguard the health and safety of County residents, so we thought that the people who follow your UCL Practitioner blog might be interested in hearing about it."  This sounds like a fantastic opportunity for a beginning lawyer. 

The position is open to recent law school graduates and judicial clerks, and applications are due by November 30, 2009.  For more information, please click here. 

Great CAOC Convention this year!

CAOC's 48th Annual Convention has come to a close and it was really great this year.  I heard that we had a record turnout notwithstanding the recession, which easily could have impacted attendance.  Thanks to everyone who attended my segment on how you, too, can become a class action lawyer.  And I want to extend a special public thanks to Elizabeth Cabraser for her extraordinarily kind words about my blog during the class action segment.  I was stunned and thrilled.  Thank you, again.   

I also want to extend my congratulations to all of the award recipients, and my appreciation to the CAOC staff for putting on such a successful event.  I'm looking forward to next year already. 

Multi-Blog Post and Message to Plaintiffs' attorneys: Join CAOC!

George Washington once said:

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.

Letter of Instructions to the Captains of the Virginia Regiments [July 29, 1759].

The advocates of consumer rights, viewing the resources of defense firms and corporate defendants, can relate to the trepidation felt by the out-numbered and out-gunned Continental Army. Because of that disparity in resources, Consumer Attorneys of California ("CAOC") consolidates the voices of consumer attorneys throughout the state to (1) preserve and protect the constitutional right to trial by jury for all consumers, (2) champion the cause of those who deserve redress for injury to person or property, (3) encourage and promote changes to California law by legislative, initiative or court action, (4) oppose injustice in existing or contemplated legislation, (5) correct harsh, unjust and oppressive legislation or judicial decisions, (6) advance the common law and promote the public good through the civil justice system and concerted efforts to secure safe products, a safe workplace, a clean environment, and quality health care, (7) uphold the honor, integrity and dignity of the legal profession by encouraging mutual support and cooperation among members, (8) promote the highest standards of professional conduct, and (9) inspire excellence in advocacy. This post is a multi-blog effort to inform consumer attorneys about CAOC's value and encourage participation in CAOC through membership.

CAOC works tirelessly to protect or advance those causes of import to consumers and their attorneys in California. Often those efforts, though valuable, receive little fanfare. For example, CAOC recently sponsored SB 510, which affects the re-sale of what are known as "structured settlements," in which victims receive financial compensation over a period of time for medical expenses and basic living needs, as determined by a jury. Before SB 510 was signed by the Governor, Courts expressed frustration at their inability to prevent the sale of structured settlements on terms that might ultimately lead to long-term financial hardship for the victim. Now, SB 510 gives judges the information they need to make a reasoned decision about the propriety of a structured settlement sale.

Measures like CAOC-sponsored SB 510 help protect the most vulnerable members of our society and ask for nothing in return. They exemplify the spirit of CAOC. However, CAOC is only as effective in its mission as its membership allows it to be. When consumer attorneys join the ranks of CAOC, its voice gains in power and clarity. But if consumer advocates sit on the sidelines, hoping to benefit from the work of others, CAOC is stretched thin, and we are all at risk as a result.

Now, consumer advocate bloggers from across the state are combining their voices to call upon each and every lawyer and firm that regularly represents plaintiffs to join CAOC, thereby strengthening the consumer's first line of defense. The blogs participating in this unified call to action are:

• The Complex Litigator (H. Scott Leviant)
• The UCL Practitioner (Kimberly Kralowec)
• Bailey Class Action Daily (Matt Bailey)
• California Employee Rights Blog (James J. Peters)
• An Appeal to Reason (Donna Bader)
• California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• California Debt Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• TrialLawyerTips.com (Mitch Jackson and Lisa Wilson)
• California Injury Blog (John Bisnar)
• San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• San Diego Car Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross Jurewitz
• San Diego Injury Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• California Nursing Home Abuse Lawyer Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• San Diego Injury Law Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• California Personal Injury Law Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• Biker Lawyer Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• California Credit Law (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)
• Lemon Law Blog (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)

Show your support of consumers' rights by joining and supporting CAOC. Together we can make an impact that we cannot make alone.

New summary judgment procedure decision: Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.

This post is slightly off-topic, but the opinion is remarkable and all litigators should read it. In Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Oct. 9, 2009), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Two) reversed an order granting "what may well be the most oppressive [summary judgment] motion ever presented to a superior court," involving "a record the likes of which we have never seen." Slip op. at 1, 3.

This morning's Recorder has an article by Mike McKee on the opinion (subscription), which begins:

It isn't a good sign when an appeal court refers to a lower court's "ruling" in quote marks as if it's not worthy of the term.

But that's exactly what San Francisco's First District Court of Appeal did — three times — Friday in reversing a "ruling" by San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner in an overpapered case featuring 5,415 pages of briefs.

It's true the panel critized the judge's "ruling," but its criticism of the defendant's briefing — which noted major procedural and substantive defects — was much harsher.

Bloggiversary

I can hardly believe that so much time has passed.  I created The UCL Practitioner six years ago today (on October 8, 2003).

Invitation to comment on proposed rule on court closure days

As you may have heard, on July 29, the Judicial Council voted to institute court closure days, as authorized by newly-enacted Government Code section 68106. Here is the Report that led to that vote. 

The Judicial Council has now issued proposed new Rule of Court 1.12 to implement this decision. The Rule would designate the third Wednesday of each month from September 2009 through June 2010 as court closure days and would confirm that closure days are treated as court holidays for purposes of calculating filing deadlines. Comments on the proposed Rule are due on a very short timeframe -- by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 17.

I thought the July press coverage was unclear respecting whether the Supreme Court would also be subject to the closure days. The proposed Rule makes plain that the Supreme Court will be closed, like the rest of the courts, on the third Wednesdays. This will, presumably, disrupt the Court's existing conference schedule for the rest of this year, as well as for 2010, and require rescheduling of the conferences set for September 16, October 21, November 18, December 16, and a series of third-Wednesday conferences in 2010.

Incidentally, tomorrow's conference is the final one before the Court's extended deadline (Aug. 14) to rule on the petition for rehearing in Tobacco.  So check back here tomorrow for more on that.

Another blog hiatus and a request to readers relating to Tobacco

I'm coming up on a particularly busy period at work and am therefore putting the blog on hiatus once again.  You can always reach me at my office by phone (415-788-4220) or by email at [email protected].  I will interrupt the hiatus for significant events of interest (such as the Ninth Circuit's Dukes v. Wal-Mart ruling or any ruling on the Tobacco rehearing petition).

One thing I hope to follow is trial courts' application of the Tobacco case.  If you learn of any trial-level rulings (state or federal) addressing Tobacco, please forward them.  I can post them online for everyone's benefit, as I did back in 2004 when the trial courts started ruling on the Prop. 64 retroactivity question.  I will probably interrupt my hiatus to do this if I receive copies of orders.  Thanks! 

OFF-TOPIC BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8: Strauss v. Horton

The African race was not in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution when privileges and immunities were provided for the protection of the citizen.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
U.S. Const., Amend. XIII, §1 (1865).

When the legislature gave to this court the power of granting licenses to practice law, it was with not the slightest expectation that this privilege would be extended to women.
In re Bradwell, 55 Ill. 535 (1869).

No person shall on account of sex be disqualified from entering upon or pursuing any lawful business, vocation, or profession.
Cal. Const., Art. XX, §18 (1879).

All marriages of white persons with negroes, Mongolians, or mulattoes are illegal and void.
Cal. Civ. Code §60 (1933).

The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups. The equal protection clause does not refer to rights of the Negro race, the Caucasian race, or any other race, but to the rights of individuals.
Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711 (1948).

Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.  As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Kennedy, J.).

In light of the fundamental nature of the right to marry, the California Constitution must be interpreted to guarantee this right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.
In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Cal. Const., Art. 1, §7.5 (2008).

Having been approved by a majority of the voters at the November 4, 2008 election, the initiative measure lawfully amends the California Constitution to include the new provision as article I, section 7.5.
Strauss v. Horton, ___ Cal.4th ___ (May 26, 2009) (slip op. at 12). 

[Prop. 8] reserv[es] the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leav[es] undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Id. (slip op. at 7).

UPDATE 08/04/10:

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010).

Blog hiatus

The blog will be on hiatus for a few weeks, interrupted for significant events such as the Tobacco decision. Although I'm taking a brief break from blogging, I'm not taking a break from working.  You can reach me by phone at my office (415-788-4220) or by email ([email protected]).  Stay in touch!

Today, tomorrow and the next several weeks

This morning, the Supreme Court is hearing oral argument in Los Angeles in Miller v. Bank of America.  Right now I'm not expecting to receive a report on that argument.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court is hearing oral argument in the Amalgamated and Arias cases, also in Los Angeles.  I have a reporter lined up to cover those arguments, and hope to be able to post her report here on Thursday.

Today, I'm speaking at the SFTLA's Wage & Hour seminar in San Francisco.  The seminar runs from  noon to 2:00 p.m. at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel at 450 Powell St. (registration begins at 11:30). This event is open to plaintiffs' attorneys only.  It costs $120 ($105 for SFTLA, SCCTLA, or ACCTLA members) and offers two hours of MCLE credit.  My co-speakers are Todd Schneider, Eve Cervantez, and Jonathan Gertler.  On-site registration is still available. 

On Friday, May 1, 2009, I'm speaking at CELA's 5th Annual Advanced Wage & Hour Seminar in Los Angeles.  This event is also open to plaintiffs' attorneys only.  Click here to download the registration form. 

After the reports on Amalgamated and Arias go up on Thursday, the blog will be on hiatus for several weeks.   I will interrupt the hiatus for significant news, such as if the Tobacco decision comes down early.   You can continue to reach me by phone or email during this time. 

Broken links to Supreme Court's website

The Supreme Court's appellate case information page was down for server maintenance on Tuesday, March 31 (a court holiday in observation of Cesar Chavez Day).  Apparently, some sort of alteration was made that changed the links to all of the case information pages.  As a result, all of my links to those pages throughout my blog are now broken (as are my favorites in my web browser).  The same thing happened when the Ninth Circuit updated its website.  That update broke all of my links to Ninth Circuit opinions.  I forgave them because they also started publishing an RSS feed. 

I'm not going to be able to go back and correct all of the broken links, but I will try to gradually fix the important ones, particularly those on my pending cases page. 

Deadline to apply for State Bar Executive Committees extended to Feb. 17, 2009

I have been reliably informed that the deadline to submit your application (including letters of recommendation) to become a member of the Executive Committee of the State Bar's Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section (as well as the other Sections) has been extended from February 2 to February 17, 2009.  See this blog post for more information. 

The UCL Practitioner now available on Amazon for Kindle users

Those of you with Kindle devices may now subscribe to The UCL Practitioner via Amazon and take the blog with you wherever you go.  Appropriately, I will receive royalties on any such subscriptions (the bargain price is $0.99/mo.).  Sometimes, I think I should turn the entire blog into a paid subscription service.   Of course, I would allow judges and their research attorneys free access. And I would certainly charge more than $0.99/mo.!

Reminder: Apply by Feb. 2 for the State Bar Antitrust and UCL Executive Committee

As a reminder, this coming Monday, February 2, 2009, is the deadline to submit your application (including letters of recommendation) to become a member of the Executive Committee of the State Bar's Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section.  See this blog post for more info. 

State Bar Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section Executive Committee applications due February 2, 2009

The Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California is seeking applicants for its Executive Committee.  Members of the Executive Committee serve a three-year term which would begin in September 2009.  Applications (including letters of recommendation) are due on February 2, 2009.  This is a competitive application process and involves a formal appointment by the State Bar Board of Governors.  More information, including the application form, is available at the State Bar's website. 

I am a current member of the Executive Committee; my three-year term began this past September.  We expect to be filling about six vacancies as some of the current members' terms expire.  I would encourge qualified persons to apply, particularly those who specialize in handling UCL cases (as distinct from antitrust cases).  Most of the current committee members are antitrust specialists, so those with significant experience handling UCL cases would be particularly welcome applicants.  The one limitation is that if someone else from your law firm is already a member of the Committee, you are not eligible.  Also, past participation in Section activities is a factor considered in the appointment process. 

Ninth Circuit publishes RSS feed for new opinions

I just discovered that the Ninth Circuit publishes an RSS feed for new opinions. This appears to be a very recent development.  It is definitely a welcome one. 

UPDATE:  The Ninth Circuit has redesigned its entire website, and added RSS feeds, as of just this week.  [Via]

Are you in Los Angeles? And are you hiring?

Class action attorney H. Scott Leviant, author of the blog The Complex Litigator, is exploring new opportunities in the Los Angeles area.  If you are thinking about expanding your practice, you should get in touch with him.  I've met Scott a couple of times, most recently during a meeting of CAOC's newly-formed class action practice group last month.  All you have to do is read his blog to observe his writing skills and analytical abilities in action.  His blog also reflects a strong work ethic.  He strikes me as an attorney with a healthy level of drive and ambition who would make a great addition to any plaintiff-side class action firm in the Southern California area. 

Happy Election Day!

Don't forget to vote! I voted this morning and only had to wait an hour in line. I would have thought that was bad if I hadn't seen the really long lines on TV.

UPDATE: It is 9:43 p.m. Barack Obama has won the election and this city is cheering. Literally, the cheers and the car horns are echoing up the sides of the hill on which I live, from across the city. It is like ten New Year's Eves.

Five years and counting ...

I created this blog five years ago today.

Blog hiatus until Sept. 15

Happy Labor Day! The blog will be on hiatus until the week of September 15. Please continue to email me ([email protected]) with decisions, news, comments, questions, etc. For anyone who is interested, don't forget that the Supreme Court will be hearing oral argument on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Vasquez attorneys' fees case. I would be happy to post anyone's notes on the argument (with or without attribution).

Blog hiatus ends this week

I'm planning to resume regular blogging this week. I'm going to go through my stack of cases and other blog-related material in chronological order (more or less) until we're back up to date. I'll start on Monday with a Ninth Circuit UCL opinion from February. I'll then move to a Court of Appeal decision from May, then on Wednesday I'll be into the cases from June (of which there are quite a few). I will break into the chronological sequence with any significant new developments, such as important Supreme Court activity. I already have enough material sitting on my desk for more than a month's worth of blog posts!

Blog hiatus until next week

The blog will be on hiatus until some point next week. Please continue to email me ([email protected]) with news, decisions, thoughts, questions, comments, etc.

UPDATE 06/17/08: The blog will continue to be on hiatus for another couple of weeks. I can be reached by email ([email protected]) or by phone at my office (415-788-4220).

Off-topic post: Supreme Court to decide In re Marriage Cases today

This is way off topic, but the Supreme Court will be handing down its eagerly-anticipated decision in In re Marriage Cases, no. S147999, today at 10:00 a.m. Some of the briefs from the case are collected at this link. When the opinion is posted, it should be available here: In re Marriage Cases, ___ Cal.4th ___ (May 15, 2008). This is the issue on review:

Does California's statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violate the California Constitution by denying equal protection of the laws on the basis of sexual orientation or sex, by infringing on the fundamental right to marry, or by denying the right to privacy and freedom of expression?

UPDATE: The Supreme Court, by a vote of 4-3, has answered that question in the affirmative:

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of [Family Code] section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Slip op. at 120.

Blog hiatus

The blog will be on a short hiatus, resuming next week. Please continue to email me at [email protected].

Updates to Civil E-Filing Manual now available online

Martin W. Anderson, author of Anderson on Civil E-Filing in the Central District of California, kindly writes to advise that "[t]he procedures for E-Filing in the Central District have been substantially updated since you first referenced my E-Filing manual on your blog, and I've updated the manual to reflect those changes and to add new information as well." The latest version of Martin's excellent manual is available at his site, www.efilecdc.com.

"Choose Litigation: It's at the Center of Law, a Noble Profession"

I liked this Forum article (subscription) from last Monday's Daily Journal. Former Orange County Superior Court Judge William Scheffield is very enthusiastic about the legal profession, particularly litigation, as a calling. He also articulates an interesting perspective on the advocate's role:

Some may say law is a science and a litigator a scientist. Don't believe them. What happens in the courtroom is art, not science. A litigator is an artist, a sculptor. Who wins in the courtroom depends on which litigator can best shape the perspective of the decision maker. A litigator's job is to sculpt the perspective of the juror or judge in a way that harmonizes with his or her side of the case by leading the juror back in time - recreating the past, weaving facts and law in a way leading toward his or her client's perspective. The difference between science and art is that in science - take mathematics - two plus two is always four. A good litigator might argue it's five. Litigation is about shaping perspective using the artistry of persuasion. Getting at "truth" requires you taking the juror or judge as you recreate and reshape the past - without instant replay, video or crystal ball and, not to be pejorative, spin. I tell litigants that there really is no "truth" in the courtroom, only perspective. This makes the courtroom risky business. With good lawyers on each side sculpting the past, what begins for the client as a black-and-white, dead-bang winner turns to gray when the spinning is spun. There are two certainties in the courtroom: You don't know what's going to happen, and whatever does happen will be expensive.

"The Unofficial E-Filing Manual for the U.S. District Court, Central District of California"

On Janury 30, 2008, the Daily Journal had a short article (subscription) about a document that sounds very handy for those of us practicing in the Central District of California, which just adopted mandatory e-filing rules for virtually all civil cases (see C.D. Cal. Gen. Order 08-02 (superseding Gen. Order 07-08)). Attorney Martin W. Anderson has made our lives easier by creating "The Unofficial E-Filing Manual for the United States District Court, Central District of California," available for free download at his site. According to the Daily Journal article, "The guide is loaded with tips about the ins and outs of civil e-filing in the Central District. It details the specific submission procedures for 30 unique types of civil filings, from complaints to proposed judgments." Thanks, Martin!

See also Martin's Forum article in the January 28, 2008 issue of the Daily Journal: "Eight Tips Help Lawyers Adjust to Mandatory E-Filing Requirements" (subscription).

UPDATE: A couple of the links were broken in this post. Have fixed them, including the link to Gen. Order 07-08, which has been superseded by C.D. Cal. Gen. Order 08-02 (dated February 7, 2008). Thanks to the reader who emailed me about this problem.

Happy Holidays!

The blog will be on hiatus until after the first of the year. Please continue to email me ([email protected]) with news, cases, questions, thoughts, etc.

Best wishes to everyone for a happy holiday season and a prosperous 2008!