Category Archives: California Procedure

October 16, 2008

What does “abuse of discretion” mean in your case?

Sometimes, it seems that defining an “abuse of discretion” is like nailing jello to the wall (maybe worse, since the latter is difficult, but not impossible).  There are many nuances to the standard, which can depend on the statute being applied, the basis for the abuse of discretion, and the particular procedural posture of the case. 

The last of these variables is what helps the appellant overcome this highly deferential standard of review and have the default judgment against it lifted in Fasuyi v. Permatetex, Inc. case no. A117760 (1st Dist. Oct. 15, 2008).  Permatex made a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to vacate the default judgment against it and appealed from the order denying relief.  The court of appeal tells us at the outset that the “abuse of discretion” standard applicable here may not be quite as deferential as you would expect (footnote omitted): 

The law favors resolution of cases on their merits, and because it does, any doubts about whether Code of Civil Procedure section 473 relief should be granted “must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default [citations]. Therefore, a trial court denying relief is scrutinized more carefully than an order permitting trial on the merits. [Citations.]” (Rappleyea v. Campbell(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 (Rappleyea).) Justice Mosk began Rappleyea with a succinct statement of the question before the Supreme Court and its answer: “The question is whether a default must be set aside and a default judgment reversed on the ground of abuse of discretion. We conclude that they must be.” (8 Cal.4th at p. 978.) The question before us is the same. And so is our answer.

There are two dichotomies here, one clearly defined, one not.  Orders denying 473 relief will be “scrutinized more carefully” than orders granting relief.  That is clear-cut.  What isn’t so clear is what “scrutinized more carefully” actually means while remaining within the “abuse of discretion” standard.” 

In any event, the case is yet another reminder that “abuse of discretion” may have a particularized meaning or application in your case.  And if you happen to be requesting a default judgment any time soon, I suggest you read this case for some of the pitfalls and an exposition on the gatekeeping role of the trial court.

1 Comment
Posted in: Appellate Procedure, California Procedure, Judgment, Standard of Review

October 1, 2008

Don’t Forget, Appellants: The Record is Your Burden, Too

Everyone knows, or should know, that part of the appellant’s burden of demonstrating prejudicial error is to present a record that adequately demonstrates the error. If you’re arguing the court erred in granting summary judgment, you’d think it would be pretty obvious to include all the moving papers, including the moving party’s statement of undisputed material facts (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (b)(1)). The appellant in Gunn v Mariners Church, Inc., case no. G038445 (4th Dist. Sept. 2, 2008, ordered published Sept. 30, 2008), failed to include the moving party’ separate statement, with potentially dire consequences, but catches a break from an accommodating court:

Critical to our review of any summary judgment is the moving party’s separate statement of undisputed facts. Gunn elected to proceed by way of an appellant’s appendix (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124), in which he has included Mariners Church’s points and authorities and its attorney’s declaration to which various deposition pages and other pieces of documentary evidence, but not Mariners Church’s actual separate statement of undisputed facts. Gunn’s failure to provide a complete record arguably precludes him from meeting his appellate burden. [Citations.]

Gunn has, however, included his own separate statement in the appellant’s appendix, which appears to be in the form required by the court rules juxtaposing Mariners Church’s assertions of undisputed fact with Gunn’s responses thereto. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d).) And Mariners Church does not suggest Gunn’s separate statement inaccurately represents its statement of undisputed facts. Accordingly, we will proceed on the merits based on Gunn’s separate statement and the evidence Mariners Church submitted.

I wonder how much of the court’s forgiveness was due to the fact that it affirmed anyway. I suspect most panels would be quite reluctant to reverse on a similar record.

The bottom line: don’t rely on the court’s largesse. Include a thorough record.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Procedure, California Procedure, Record on Appeal

September 15, 2008

Peremptory Challenge to Judge After Remand Has Its Limits

Virtually every civil litigator knows about the procedure afforded by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 for disqualification of the judge assigned to the case.  Commonly called “papering the judge,” the requirements of the section are so meager that such challenges are also referred to as “peremptory” challenges, though not technically so (to my mind), and my guess is that any civil litigator who has practiced for more than a few years has invoked section 170.6 at least once.

Maybe you didn’t know that this disqualification procedure is available even after reversal on appeal.  Subdivision (a)(2) of section 170.6 provides

A motion under this paragraph may be made following reversal on appeal of a trial court’s decision, or following reversal on appeal of a trial court’s final judgment, if the trial judge in the prior proceeding is assigned to conduct a new trial on the matter.  Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the party who filed the appeal that resulted in the reversal of a final judgment of a trial court may make a motion under this section regardless of whether that party or side has previously done so.  The motion shall be made within 60 days after the party or the party’s attorney has been notified of the assignment.

Since appellants frequently feel they were treated unfairly by the trial judge in the first instance, the ability to “paper the judge” after a reversal on appeal is a critically important consideration.  It may be the one thing that convinces an aggrieved party to appeal, when that party might otherwise have been resigned to accept an adverse judgment because the prospect of having to retry the case before the same judge the party thinks is an idiot is simply too daunting.

But you’ve got to be careful about when you count on it and when you don’t, as the real parties in interest learned in C.C. v. Superior Court, case no. G040580 (4th Dist. Sept. 11, 2008), a juvenile dependency proceeding in which, after succeeding on appeal by obtaining a reversal of a reunification order, real parties “papered the judge.”  Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate, and the court of appeal grants the petition.

The language allowing a peremptory challenge on remand was added in 1985 to avoid perceived bias against an appellant of a trial judge whose judgment or order had been reversed on appeal.  (Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 575-576.)  But the statute applies only where the remand requires “a ‘reexamination’ of a factual or legal issue that was in controversy in the prior proceeding.”  (Geddes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 417, 424.)  It does not apply to the performance of a ministerial act.  (Stegs Investments v. Superior Court, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 576.)

The problem for real parties, however, is that the remand order required the trial court to perform only ministerial acts.  Those were: (1) to enter a new order denying reunification services and (2) setting a permanent plan selection hearing.  The court rejected the real parties’ argument that the subsequent hearing would require a reexamination of the same issues considered in the reunification hearing.

The real parties in interest claim, “the juvenile court in the present case will undoubtedly revisit the core determinations upon which this Court based its reversal,” meaning it will have to consider the strength of the bond between the children and the mother at the permanent plan selection hearing.  This claim is true, but the consideration of the parent-child bond at the permanent plan selection hearing is not for purposes of reunification; rather, it is to determine whether to avoid the termination of parental rights and select a different permanent plan.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)  This consideration will take place in a different legal context from the disposition hearing and will involve facts as they then exist.  On remand, however, the juvenile court was merely directed to enter an order denying reunification services and to set a permanent plan selection hearing.  The implementation of these directions will not constitute a reexamination of an issue of fact or a retrial of the dispositional issues. 

Thus, “[b]ecause the matter was not remanded for a reexamination of an issue of fact or a retrial of the dispositional issues, we grant the petition and direct that the case be returned to [the challenged judge].”

The same considerations should not apply in the typical civil trial, where past facts are what are at issue.  But any time that future consideration of an issue will depend on facts as they then exist, “papering the judge” is apparently not an option after remand.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: California Procedure, Judges, Juveniles

August 27, 2008

An Important Discovery Ruling Overcomes a Deferential Standard of Review

For a prospective appellant (or, as in the case profiled here, the prospective writ petitioner), the “abuse of discretion” standard of review can be daunting, and may even convince the party that the pursuit of an appeal or writ is not worthwhile. Not only does it set a high bar for reversal, but it can be very difficult to define within the circumstances of a case. (I’ve written before about the somewhat hazy nature of the “abuse of discretion” standard of review.)

Against this backdrop, Alch v. Superior Court, case no. B203726 (2d Dist. Aug 14, 2008) presents a very interesting discussion of the standard as it introduces its decision reversing the trial court’s refusal to allow discovery (which is not, by the way, immediately appealable, and thus is found in this writ decision).

First, the backdrop of the case:

Television writers filed class action lawsuits against studios, networks, production companies and talent agencies, asserting an industry-wide pattern and practice of age discrimination. The writers served subpoenas on third parties, including the Writers Guild of America, seeking data on Writers Guild members from which they could prepare a statistical analysis to support their claims of age discrimination. A privacy notice was sent to 47,000 Writers Guild members, advising them of their right to object to disclosure of personal information on privacy grounds. Some 7,700 individuals filed objections. The writers moved to overrule the objections. The trial court sustained the objections in their entirety. The writers sought a writ directing the trial court to vacate its order and allow access to certain of the requested information, arguing the information was critical to proving their claims and privacy concerns were minimal. We grant the writ petition.

Before even reaching its analysis, the court of appeal explains why it is able to reverse despite the formidable obstacle usually presented by the abuse of discretion standard applicable to review of orders denying discovery:

We are well aware that a reviewing court may not substitute its opinion for that of the trial court if there is a basis, supported by the evidence, for the trial court’s ruling, and that we may set aside an order denying discovery only if there was no legal justification for the order. (Tien v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 528, 535.) We also recognize that the trial court was faced, to some extent, with a moving target: the information initially subpoenaed was more comprehensive – and considerably more sensitive on the privacy scale – than the information the writers requested in their motion to overrule the objections, and the latter, too, was more inclusive than the information ultimately sought when the writers asked for reconsideration. These differences, however, highlight the error in the trial court’s analysis. It used a broad brush to deny the writers access to all data about the objectors out of hand, and wholly failed to consider whether a more nuanced approach to the different categories of data would satisfy the balance that must be struck between privacy interests and a litigant’s need for discovery. (See Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 658 (Valley Bank) [considerations which will affect the exercise of the trial court’s discretion in evaluating privacy claims include the “‘ability of the court to make an alternative order which may grant partial disclosure’”; where possible, “‘courts should impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery’”].)

In short, while the trial court purported to weigh the objectors’ privacy rights against the public interest in pursuing the litigation, it failed to follow the dictates of Valley Bank in doing so. In addition to failing to analyze the different categories of data requested, the court gave short shrift to “the public interest in pursuing [the] litigation.” Indeed, it erroneously stated that the writers, in their brief, had indicated “that they may still be able to put together a meaningful statistical study based upon information from non-objectors.” On the contrary, the writers submitted evidence that no meaningful statistical study could take place if data from the objectors were omitted from it. Under these circumstances, we can reach no other conclusion than that the trial court’s orders denying access to any and all data from the objectors were without legal justification.

(Footnotes omitted.)

I suspect, however, that few litigants will be able to take advantage of Alch in the court of appeal because the only immediate route for review of discovery orders is via writ petition. The odds are greater than 9 in 10 that your writ petition will be denied summarily without reaching the merits.

The real value of Alch will be to trial attorneys trying to convince the trial court in the first instance that denial of discovery would be an abuse of discretion. Because such orders are not immediately reviewable on appeal, there has always been a dearth of appellate discovery rulings for trial lawyers to cite when arguing a motion to compel or a motion for protective order. Alch’s application of Valley Bank may lead to greater uniformity in trial court decisions, or at least greater attention being paid to the “nuance” of the scope of information sought.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Procedure, California Procedure, Discovery, Mandamus/Prohibition, Standard of Review, Writ Practice

August 21, 2008

“A Sadistic Urge to Torment Lawyers”

Foltergeräte

Image via Wikipedia

I always assume that all of the rules of procedure will be strictly construed against me, and that opposing counsel will be allowed to get away with murder. To me, it’s the smart way to practice: dot your I’s and cross your T’s.

In Whitehead v. Habig, case no. G037991 (4th Dist. May 28, 2008, ordered published June 5, 2008), the appellants had appealed a summary adjudication and default judgment on the remaining claims. In opposing the summary adjudication motion, the appellants never filed their own separate statement of undisputed and disputed material facts (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(e)); they merely filed objections to the moving parties’ separate statement of material facts.  In noting that the objections did not satisfy the requirement for a separate statement, the court had a gem of a quote:

The separate statement is not merely a technical requirement, it is an indispensible part of the summary judgment or adjudication process. “Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for . . . summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.” [Citation.]

The appellants’ failure to comply with the separate statement requirement in opposition is reason enough for the trial court to grant the summary adjudication motion.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: California Procedure, Summary Judgment

August 7, 2008

A Judgment that Nobody Noticed Sinks an Appeal

How can the parties and the court all miss the fact that the court entered a judgment?  Well, when the document that operates as such isn’t labeled “judgment,” I guess one can occasionally slip by . . . to the appellant’s great misfortune in Melbostad v. Fisher, case no. A119514 (July 23, 2008, ordered published Aug. 4, 2008), in which the court of appeal dismisses the appellant’s challenge to a fee award as untimely.

In Melbostad, the trial court granted defendant’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) and entered an order dismissing the complaint “with prejudice.” It subsequently granted a motion for fees brought by one of the defendants, then entered a judgment that “recapitulated” the previous orders granting the special motion to strike and granting the motion for attorney fees.

Appellant challenged the fee award by appealing from this second “judgment” rather than from the order granting the fee motion.  Which is what brought the timeliness of the notice of appeal into play.  His notice of appeal was untimely as meadured from the order granting the fee motion, but timely as measured from the final “judgment.”  Apellant conceded that his time to appeal the order granting the special motion to strike ran from the original order granting that motion (see Code Civ. Proc. sec. 904.1, subd. (a)(13)), but contended that his time to appeal the fee award ran from entry of the subsequent judgment.  Even the respondent agreed.

Not so.  The court finds that because the order dismissing the complaint disposed of all the substantive claims between the parties, it was an appealable judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1), and thus the fee award was a separately appealable order after judgment pursuant to section 904.1, subdivision (a)(2).  The subsequent judgment “appears to have served no purpose here, and appellant’s appeal from it does not save his otherwise untimely appeal.”

There was some clever, but unavailing argument from the appellant, and the decision goes into some depth on why the order granting the section 425.16 motion is a “judgment.”  In reading the case, you’ll also discover important differences in appealability based on whether the plaintiff or defendant prevails on the section 425.16 motion.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Procedure, Attorney Fees, California Procedure

August 5, 2008

Flexibility on Appellate Jurisdiction

“Jurisdiction” and “flexibility” are terms that don’t really go together . . . most of the time.  But I’ve taken note before of the willingness of California appellate courts to “save” appeals through various devices, such as a generous construction of the notice of appeal, or treating an appeal from a non-appealable order as a writ petition.  In fact, these devices are used to save appeals from plainly non-appealable orders.

They can also be employed where appellate jurisdiction — or lack of it— is less than clear, as in People v. Segura, case no. S148536 (Aug. 4, 2008), where the Supreme Court avoids deciding the issue by treating the appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.  Relegating the appellate jurisdiction issue to a footnote, a unanimous Supreme Court set forth the parties’ competing views on appealability, then noted that the Attorney General, who contended the order was not appealable, nonetheless urged the court to review it.  The result:

Nonetheless, the Attorney General requests that we treat the purported appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and, in the interest of judicial economy and because the issue is a matter of concern to many persons other than defendant, decide the case on its merits.  (See generally People v. Banks (1959) 53 Cal.2d 370, 379-381 & fn. 5.)  The Attorney General points out that a probationer in constructive custody may petition for a writ of habeas corpus (In re Stier (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 63, 82), and in analogous circumstances appeals have been so treated.  (Gallardo, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 986).  We do so here in the interest of judicial economy and because the issue is of general concern.

Just last week, I wrote about the Supreme Court’s inexplicable avoidance of a squarely presented issue of appellate jurisdiction (albeit in a long ago case), in which they decided the case without either answering the jurisdictional question or even using some device to “save” the appeal, merely because neither party raised it. Here, while the court did not settle the appealability issue, they at least worked their way around it.

Interestingly enough, this nugget regarding appellate jurisdiction comes in a case where the question for review is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a post-judgment defense motion to reduce a jail term bargained for in a plea agreement imposing probation.  The defendant had already served the sentence (released early) but needed the sentence reduced to avoid deportation.  The trial court denied the motion, saying it lacked jurisdiction to reduce the bargained-for term.  The court of appeal reversed.  The Supreme Court reverses the court of appeal:  

We granted review to determine whether a prescribed jail term that constitutes a material provision of a plea agreement conferring as its chief benefit, a grant of probation in lieu of a prison sentence, may be modified by the trial court in the exercise of its authority to modify or revoke probation during the probationary period.  As we shall explain, in this matter defendant was granted probation, for which he otherwise was ineligible in view of the prior conviction allegation, in exchange for entering into a plea agreement comprised of various terms, including confinement in the county jail for a specified number of days.  He knowingly and voluntarily accepted those terms of the agreement.  The trial court’s statutory authority to modify conditions of probation in the exercise of its jurisdiction over a probationer did not extend to modifying a material term of a plea agreement that bestowed the privilege of probation subject to defendant’s service of a specified jail term.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Procedure, California Procedure, Jurisdiction

August 1, 2008

Why Did the Supreme Court Punt on a Jurisdictional Issue?

Regular readers know I am a jurisdiction geek, and today I get to sink my teeth into a jurisdictional oddity. Well, not a jurisdictional oddity so much as the odd behavior of the Supreme Court with respect to a jurisdictional question.

I’ll get to the Supreme Court in a minute. First, a brief rundown on the issue from the case that led me to raise the question in the title to this post.

In State of California ex rel Department of Pesticide Regulation v. Pet Food Express Limited, case no. C057156 (3d Dist. July 31, 2008), the court of appeal holds that an order enforcing an administrative subpoena is appealable. Borrowing from court of appeal precedent finding that an order enforcing a legislative subpoena is appealable, the court applied the same reasoning to the administrative subpoena in this case. Because the order is the final resolution of the rights between the parties in an original proceeding instituted specifically to enforce compliance — whether that proceeding is deemed a “special proceeding” or an “action” — it is a judgment within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 577 (“A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding”). It is thus appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1).

Interesting enough, but not fascinating. What I did find fascinating was the court’s description regarding the history of the appealability issue.

The court first notes the split of authority at the court of appeal level. While several court of appeal decisions decided such appeals without any explicit consideration of the appealability issue — presumably assuming the appealability of such orders — the remaining courts were split. Some found such orders appealable, others found such orders reviewable by writ only but construed the appeal as a writ petition in the interests of justice.

The amazing thing is that in spite of this split, the Supreme Court had twice entertained such cases and neither time decided the appealability issue. Obviously, the question af appealability was not one of the issues on which the Supreme Court accepted review, but appealability is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived by the parties. The first time around, in Craib v. Bulmash (1989) 49 Cal.3d 475, I can see how the Supremes might not address it if neither party did (Pet Food describes the Supreme Court decision as silent on the issue) because it, like some courts of appeal, could have presumed jurisdiction. But the second time around, in Arnett v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal4th 4, the Supremes explicitly noted the split in the courts of appeal, decided that the “better view” was that such orders are appealable, but declined to decide the issue because neither party raised it!

Come again? Declined to decide a jurisdictional issue that was squarely presented and on which there was a split of authority in the courts of appeal? And here’s a fact that makes it even stranger: the authority the Supremes relied on as the “better view” had based its decision that the order was appealable in part on the Supreme Court’s previous failure to resolve the issue, i.e., the Supreme Court’s apparent assumption of appealability. In light of all this, the Pet Food court calls the Supremes’ avoidance of the issue “perplexing.” Oh, yes, I’d say so.

Perhaps Pet Food will be the case in which the Supreme Court finally decides the issue. It sure seems to have teed up the issue.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Procedure, California Procedure, California Supreme Court

July 2, 2008

Keep Appealing Orders Denying Post-Conviction Motions on Jurisdictional Grounds

People v. Picklesimer, case no. C056385 (3d Dist. July 2, 2008) reminds me of one of those time travel conundrums.  You know, the ones that go something like (to pick a grisly example), “If you go back in time and kill your mother before she even gets pregnant with you, how can you ever exist so that you can go back in time and kill her?”

In Picklesimer, the court of appeal dismisses an appeal because the appeal is taken from an order denying the defendant’s post-conviction motion for relief from the sex offender registration requirements, which the trial court denied on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.  The court of appeal agrees that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the motion was not made until after the judgment of conviction became final on the prior appeal from the judgment, and thus the appeal must be dismissed because the order did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.

A criminal defendant may appeal from “any order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party.” (§ 1237, subd. (b).) Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by defendant, the order denying defendant’s motion did not affect his substantial rights and was not appealable. (See People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1725-1726 [because trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify sentence, order denying motion to modify was not an appealable postjudgment order].) The appeal must be dismissed.

It seems to me that this effectively makes appealability dependent on the outcome of the appeal.  The court of appeal’s reasoning suggests that had defendant prevailed on appeal by showing that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain his motion — or even if he had lost on substantive grounds following a determination that jurisdiction existed — the order would have been appealable.

Thus, I think it would be a grave mistake for defense counsel to read Picklesimer to prohibit appeals from orders denying post-conviction motions on jurisdictional grounds.  The way I read it, appeal is only prohibited if the trial court was correct about its lack of jurisdiction.  And the only way you’ll find that out for sure is if you . . . appeal.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Procedure, California Procedure

June 25, 2008

Appeal That Fee Award

I don’t usually review unpublished decisions for material for this blog..  But unpublished decisions, even if they don’t create new law, can have some interesting points.  (Just ask Bisnar | Chase.)

California Attorney’s Fees has a good post, based on an unpublished decision filed last Monday, reminding everyone to appeal separately from a fee award in addition to any appeal from the judgment.  The appellant in the case filed an untimely notice of appeal from the judgment that did not include an appeal from the subsequent fee award, then filed an untimely notice of appeal from the fee award.  Result: untimely appeal, no jurisdiction, appeal dismissed.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Procedure, Attorney Fees, California Procedure

May 6, 2008

Who Knows Why Some Parties Appeal?

Sometimes a decision just makes no sense, at least to someone looking at it from the outside. Such is the case with Profit Concepts Management, Inc. v. Griffith, case no. G039077 (4th Dist. May 5, 2008).

Oh, the merits make sense. California-based Profit Concepts sued former employee Griffith in California under an employment agreement that contained an attorney fee provision. But Griffith lived in Oklahoma and successfully moved to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court awarded Griffith contractual attorney fees as the prevailing party.

Reasonable enough. The court rejects Profit Concept’s argument that because the lawsuit, which it had resumed in Oklahoma, left contract issues pending resolution, Griffith could not be considered the prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717. Griffith clearly prevailed on the claims in California, and that is all the award was concerned with.

The part that’s hard to understand is the reasoning employed by Profit Concepts in pursuing the appeal, both legally and practically.

Legally, it’s hard to understand why Profit Concepts cited case authority interpreting an older version of Civil Code section 1717 that had changed in a very material respect. Specifically, while the former statute defined a “prevailing party” in terms of obtaining a final judgment, the current version defines prevailing party as, among others, a party that obtains a dismissal. That’s a pretty clear and relevant distinction.

The practical part is just as hard, if not harder, to understand. The attorney fees awarded were barely $3400. What made this appeal practical?

2 Comments
Posted in: Attorney Fees, California Procedure

April 21, 2008

The Limits of Wende

Anyone who does criminal appellate work by appointment for indigent defendants is familiar with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Wende requires the court of appeal to conduct an independent review of the record for error when appointed counsel files a brief representing that he or she has reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. At least, this review is required on the defendant’s first appeal as of right.

People v. Dobson, case no. F053531 (5th Dist. Apr. 16, 2008) teaches the limits of Wende. Dobson was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a state mental hospital. Six years later, he was released to outpatient status briefly before the court granted a petition to revoke his outpatient status. Dobson then petitioned for release on the ground of regained sanity and lost.

Dobson appealed, and his appointed counsel on appeal filed a Wende brief asking the court of appeal to independently review the record. The issue decided by the court here is whether they are required to conduct such an independent review under the circumstances.

The court of appeal concludes an independent review of the record is not mandated by Wende and dismisses the appeal. A petition for release is not a criminal proceeding, and the due process protections nonetheless present make an erroneous decision sufficiently unlikely that an independent review isn’t warranted.

There’s more to the analysis, of course, and the case serves as a pretty good primer on the test for evaluating when independent review is necessary.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Procedure, Briefing, California Procedure, Standard of Review, Waiver of Issues

April 17, 2008

The Ninth Asks the California Supremes for Help

Kimberly Kralowec reports at The Appellate Practitioner:

Within the past seven days, the Ninth Circuit has issued two orders asking the California Supreme Court to rule on controlling legal questions pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.548[.]

***

Such orders are relatively rare, so it is rather unusual to see two issued within five days of each other. There is no overlap on the panels.

Unusual, indeed.

Professor Martin says the request in one of the cases is particularly polite and respectful.  I’m sure the Ninth is hoping for a better response than they got last October!

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: California Procedure, Ninth Circuit

April 1, 2008

Appellate Surprises

Some points about appellate practice — even well-settled points — can come as surprises to those not well versed in it. Doe v. United Airlines, case no. B192865 (2d Dist. Mar. 20, 2008) consolidates several of them in a single case. I’m only going to spend a line or two on each one, without much elaboration. The point of the post is to disclose just a few traps trial attorneys can fall into, not to give detailed exposition on each point.

My original post about the case concerned what some might consider a procedural oddity: a new trial motion where no trial ever occurred. A new trial motion is validly made after a grant of summary judgment.

Here are the remaining points I think worth bringing out of the case:

The Protective Cross Appeal. Congratulations, you’ve won your new trial motion! Your adversary appeals the grant of a new trial. And if you think you’re going to be disappointed if they prevail on appeal, you’re going to be absolutely horrified if you forgot to file a protective cross-appeal from the underlying judgment.

Forfeiture of Evidentiary Objections. California decisions generally hold that objections to evidence offered in summary judgment are not preserved for appeal unless the objecting party secures a ruling from the trial court. But with the recent development of a split of authority, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue.

Affirmance of New Trial Orders on Alternative Grounds. Read that new trial statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 657) closely. Section 657 provides, in part, that (emphasis added) “[o]n appeal from an order granting a new trial the order shall be affirmed if it should have been granted upon any ground stated in the motion, whether or not specified in the order or specification of reasons,” followed by exceptions to this rule.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Procedure, New Trials, Summary Judgment, Waiver of Issues

March 26, 2008

Producer’s Lawsuit Crashes

Did you ever wonder while watching the Academy Awards presentation on TV just who gets to go up on stage and receive an award as a “producer” when a film wins for best picture?  Wonder no more.  The procedure for identifying producers entitled to share in the award is succinctly explained in Yari v. Producers Guild of America, Inc., case no. B196817 (2d Dist. Mar. 25, 2008)., in which Yari runs up against the limitations on judicial review of a private organization’s decision-making processes.

Yari contended he should have received an award as a producer for the 2004 best film award winner Crash.  The selection process involves both the Guild and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.  The Academy generally relies on the designations made by the Guild, which are made after receiving applications from everyone who received screen credit as a producer.  The Guild did not designate Yari, and his appeals through the Guild and Academy proved fruitless.

Yari’s claim for “wrongful denial of the right of fair procedure” attempted to invoke the doctrine allowing judicial review of a private organization’s decision-making processes, but the court of appeal holds that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer as to this count.  Though Yari alleged that the Guild and Academy had great influence in the movie industry, his allegations fell short of establishing that they perform a “gatekeeping” function in the sense that they can prevent him from working in the industry or that the organizations affect the public interest in the same sense that a dental association does when it disciplines a member dentist.

This case is a nice summary of the law regarding when a private organization’s decision-making processes are — and are not — subject to judicial review.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: California Procedure, Jurisdiction

March 25, 2008

Order or Judgment? It can make a big difference!

More wrangling over what triggers a deadline to appeal.

Several weeks ago, I reported on Adaimy v. Ruhl, case no. B193745 (2d Dist. Feb. 28, 2008), in which the court of appeal held that serving just one of multiple attorneys representing a party with a notice of entry of an order denying a motion for new trial suffices to trigger the deadline to appeal.  In this order modifying the opinion without change in the judgment and denying rehearing, the court tacks two paragraphs on to its original opinion that lead me to the question posed in the title of this post.

Though the original opinion refers to an August 7, 2006 “notice of entry of the order” denying the appellant’s new trial motion, the modified opinion refers to a document of the same date titled “Ruling on Submitted Matter,” apparently the same document.  The generic reference has some significance in the context of the new argument that the court quickly disposes of.

Appellant claimed that the “Ruling on Submitted Matter” was not a notice of entry of order within the meaning of rule 8.108(b)(1)(A), California Rules of Court (extending the time to appeal to 30 days after notice of entry of order denying new trial) because it was not titled “Notice of Entry of Order” and was not file-stamped with the date of entry.

The court notes, however, that the words “Notice of Entry of Order” appear at page 6 of the document.  That’s enough.  But is that necessary?  Rule 8.108(b)(1)(A) triggers the deadline for appealing from the service of “an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that order.”  It’s hard to say exactly what this document was comprised of, but I’m guessing that the “Ruling on Submitted Matter” was not the order itself, but a document with the order attached. If it were simply the order itself, it seems the court could have found it sufficient to trigger the appeal deadline regardless of the presence of the words “notice of entry.”

As for the missing file stamp, the court notes that while a file-stamp must appear on any copy of the judgment served in lieu of a notice of entry of judgment (rule 8.104(a)(1)), there is no such requirement under rule 8.108 for notice of entry or a copy of the order denying a new trial.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Procedure, California Procedure, New Trials, Notice of Appeal

March 24, 2008

Is Summary Judgment Unconstitutional?

That’s surely a heretical thought to many. And not one that would have popped into my head had reader Joe Norman not commented on my post regarding new trial motions following summary judgment by sending a link to an article by University of Cincinnati College of Law professor Suja Thomas entitled “Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional.” Before you laugh off that idea, you ought to read the abstract at that link. An excerpt:

While other scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States. But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. This Essay is the first to examine the question and takes the seemingly heretical position that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Odds are slim that I can read the article any time soon, so if anyone reads it, I’d sure be interested in your comments, which I encourage you to leave on this post.

1 Comment
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Judgment, Jury Trial, Summary Judgment, Summary Judgment

March 21, 2008

An Odd Request

Not from me.  From the plaintiff homeowners association in Pacific Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Prun, case no. G038244 (4th Dist. Mar. 20, 2008).

The plaintiff association prevailed at trial, getting an injunction requiring the defendant to comply with covenants, conditions and restrictions and architectural guidelines by modifying a structure on their property.  So far so good, but the judgment also required the homeowners association to pay two-thirds of the cost, so long as certain conditions were met. So when the defendant appealed, the association cross-appealed, arguing that the court was wrong to make it responsible for costs in moving the gate.

The association then asserted — apparently in its briefs, since the court does not mention a motion — that its appeal was moot because the defendant had not timely met the conditions triggering the association’s obligation to pay. In light of this contention, the association apparently asked the court of appeal to rule that the association no longer had an obligation to pay because the time for satisfying the conditions had passed.  The reasons the court gives for declining to do so should have been anticipated by the association:

Plaintiff asserts that its appeal “is apparently moot” because defendants did not timely elect to move the gate back at least 20 feet from the property line, and asks for a “clarification of the effect of the passage of [the] time lines” set out in the judgment. We decline to do so. There is nothing in the record to show what occurred after judgment was entered with respect to the gate. Nor do we give advisory opinions. [Citation.]

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Procedure, California Procedure

March 21, 2008

A Dilemma for Some Defendants Who Seek to Arbitrate

It’s a long-held rule in California that a defendant sued on a contract may recover attorney fees pursuant to a provision in the contract even if the defendant prevails on a theory that he was not a party to the contract or that the contract is nonexistent, inapplicable, invalid or unenforceable. The rule exists in order to further the purpose of Civil Code section 1717, which is to make unilateral fee provisions reciprocal. If a defendant could not recover fees after successfully defending on these grounds, then the ability to recover fees would be limited to a prevailing plaintiff, which would frustrate the the public policy of mutuality underlying the statute.

Consider now whether a similar rule should apply to arbitration provisions. Public policy in favor of arbitration appears evident in the scheme for compelling arbitration (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281 ff.) and in the fact that the legislature made an order denying a petition to compel arbitration appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., §1294, subd. (a).) Should a defendant be able to compel arbitration pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision in a contract alleged by plaintiff even if the defendant denies the existence of that contract?

The court of appeal says “no” in Brodke v. Alphatec Spine Inc., case no G038591 (4th Dist. Mar. 20, 2008). The defendants refused to affirmatively allege the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, pointing instead only to the fact that plaintiffs alleged the existence of four contracts and that defendants would amit to them only for purposes of the arbitration petition. Not enough, says the court.

Both the plain language of the statute and the function of an arbitration petition compel the response, says the court. Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.1 requires the party petitioning to compel arbitration to allege “the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy.” The court also notes that a petition to compel arbitration is the functional equivalent of a suit in equity to compel specific performance, thus requiring affirmative allegations.

The defendants cited case law allowing a party to petition to compel arbitration while at the same time denying the validity of the agreement containing an arbitration, but the court notes that a party contesting validity does not contest the actual existence of the agreement.

The defendant also contended that being forced to acknowledge the existence of the contract would deprive it of applicable defenses. Here’s the defendant’s contention and the court’s response:

Defendants next protest that if they “concede the existence and validity of the contracts for all purposes in order to compel arbitration” they will be forced to “relinquish[] potentially valid defenses.” Their argument is unavailing. Defendants do not identify the defenses they would “relinquish” if they are forced to litigate this dispute in court. All defenses remain available to them, including their claim that the contracts do not exist.

I think the court has this mixed up. The dilemma faced by defendants in this situation is that by admitting to the existence of the contract, the admission works as a judicial estoppel that precludes them from contesting the existence of the contracts during arbitration. The court’s response does not address this. Instead, it says that the defendants do not lose the right to assert any defenses in court.

To my mind, the court did not adequately address the defendants’ dilemma — which I think is a legitimate concern.

I suppose it’s possible that given the flexibility afforded to an arbitrator, a defendant who successfully petitions to compel arbitration could try to convince the arbitrator that the admission in the petition should not estop the defendant from denying of the existence of the contract. But that is largesse from the arbitrator I would rather not have to count on.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Arbitration, California Procedure

March 20, 2008

New Trial Motions after Summary Judgment

Can you move for a new trial when your case was disposed of by summary judgment?  This question undoubtedly causes some degree of cognitive dissonance in many lawyers: a new trial when there was no trial?

But the answer is “yes.”

A reminder comes in the form of Doe v. United Airlines, case no. B192865 (2d Dist. Mar. 20, 2008).  After United successfully moved for summary judgment, Doe moved for a new trial on the ground of “newly discovered evidence” that purportedly raised a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment.

Not that it ultimately did her any good.  The court of appeal holds that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial motion and affirms on plaintiff’s protective cross-appeal from the grant of summary judgment.

There are lots of post-trial and appellate tidbits in this case.  Nothing new, just well-established principles for which the case provides a reminder.  I’ll probably be putting up separate posts on them (or consolidate them into a new post) in the next few days.

3 Comments
Posted in: California Procedure, New Trials, Summary Judgment, Summary Judgment

March 6, 2008

Another Private AG Fees Case Headed for the Supremes?

Well, we just had one Supreme Court opinion on the private attorney general statute (about which I posted here), and at first, I suspected that the Third District Court of Appeal was trying to tee up another one for potential Supreme Court review in Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commission, case no. C052872 (3d Dist. Mar. 4, 2008). To my mind, its public policy implications are significant.

At issue is the scope of the “catalyst” theory for recovering attorney fees under California’s “private attorney general” statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The catalyst rule provides that a party can recover fees under the statute even if it is not the prevailing party “if the lawsuit was the ‘catalyst’ that caused ‘the defendant [to] change[] its behavior substantially because of, and in the manner sought by, the litigation.’ (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 560 . . . .)”

Does that rule allow a plaintiff to recover fees if its lawsuit is the catalyst for change in how the public entity defendant operates if the change is mandated by the legislature in response to the suit, rather than instigated internally by the public entity? The Court of Appeal says no. Reading the catalyst rule of Graham literally, it holds that the change must be implemented unilaterally by the defendant, rather than be imposed on the defendant by a third party like the legislature, to bring the change within the catalyst theory. Thus, the fact that the legislature changed the law in response to a Supreme Court ruling in an earlier appeal from the case does not support fee recovery under the catalyst theory.

It was this statement in the opinion’s introduction that made me think the court of appeal was trying to set the case up for Supreme Court review::

To the extent it can be said that the rationale of the catalyst theory should apply to a lawsuit like this, which was the moving force resulting in a change in statutory law that conferred a significant benefit on the general public regarding important rights affecting the public, the argument must be made to the California Supreme Court because we are bound by the ruling in Graham, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 560. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)

But there were other obstacles to a fee recovery in this case. The court of appeal found first that the plaintiff had not achieved the primary relief it sought. That is the first condition of a “catalyst” – based fee recovery, and plaintiff’s failure to meet it should have been enough to deny fees. The impetus for the changed behavior was merely an additional reason to deny fees.

By the way, Tom Caso at The Opening Brief has had a number of interesting posts on section 1021.5 in the last few months.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Attorney Fees, California Procedure, Post-Trial Practice

February 29, 2008

Notice to One of Multiple Attorneys Suffices to Trigger Deadline to Appeal

It’s not that uncommon to see a party represented in a lawsuit by more than one law office. That party often requests service of documents be made on all of its attorneys.

Notwithstanding such a request, the court of appeal holds in Adaimy v. Ruhl, case no. B193745 (2d Dist. Feb. 28, 2008) that the mailing of notice of entry of judgment to just one of multiple firms representing a party triggers the deadline for that party to file its notice of appeal.

Adaimy claimed the notice of entry of the order denying his new trial motion was ineffective, thus giving him 180 days from the date of entry of judgment to file his notice of appeal (rather than the shorter period of 30 days from notice of entry). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(a).) The court finds, however, that as long as one of Adaimy’s attorneys received notice, it was effective notice and due process was satisfied. Adaimy thus had only 30 days to file his notice of appeal. Since he filed it on the 31st day, his appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A costly lesson in the jurisdictional nature of the notice of appeal.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Procedure, California Procedure, Notice of Appeal

Tags:

February 28, 2008

Expert Witness Fees May Not Be Awarded Under Private Attorney General Statute

In a decision being closely watched by many, the California Supreme Court holds today in Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California, case no. S143999 (Feb. 28, 2008), that Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the state’s “private attorney general” statute, does not authorize a court to award expert witness fees in addition to the attorney fees explicitly authorized by the statute.

As the court notes, the statute explicitly authorizes an award of “attorney fees” and is silent about expert witness fees. Which should have made for an easy decision.

Yet the court is compelled to delve behind the plain language of the statute. The decision is a good primer on how to read behind the lines of a statute by examining its enactment and amendments relative to existing case law.  That doesn’t work to change the plain meaning in this case, though.

There is sure to be more posted by other bloggers. I’ll provide links as I find them.

1 Comment
Posted in: Attorney Fees, California Procedure, Costs, Post-Trial Practice

February 26, 2008

Self-Represented Attorney May Not Recover Fees on Anti-SLAPP Motion

In Taheri Law Group v. Neil C. Evans, case no. B192828 (2d Dist. Feb. 26, 2008), the Court of Appeal holds that the attorney fee provision in the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) does not entitle a self-represented attorney to recover fees for bringing a successful anti-SLAPP motion.

This is merely an extension of the similar holding in Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, which held that a self-represented attorney could not recover fees under a contractual fee provision. The Taheri court makes clear that an attorney-client relationship is necessary before fees may be recovered.

The identical issue of anti-SLAPP attorney fees was treated in much greater detail, and with the same result, in a 2004 decision by the same district (but different division) of the Court of Appeal. That decision was depublished when the Supreme Court granted review on a different issue. But you can find the case in the California Reporter (at least on Westlaw), and I recommend doing so if you are interested in a more detailed rationale than the Taheri opinion provides. Soukup v. Stock (2004) 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 303.

It would be a mistake to extrapolate from Taheri and Trope that fees are not recoverable in every situation in which they are not actually “incurred.” Regular readers will remember that when it comes to attorney fees, “incurred” doesn’t always mean “become obligated to pay” for. Courts have awarded fees in pro bono cases under fee shifting statutes, and will probably do the same someday under a contractual fee provision. As Taheri notes, the touchstone for recovery is an attorney-client relationship.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Anti-SLAPP, Attorney Fees, California Procedure

February 22, 2008

Parolee May Get Private Counseling without Waiving Privilege

Where parole is conditioned on the parolee receiving psycotherapy (in this case, because of the sexual nature of the offense), and the parolee retains a private therapist in addition to using state-provided therapy, is the parolee required to waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege regarding the private therapist in order to remain on parole? The state in In re Corona, case no. B197023 (2d Dist. Feb. 20, 2008) insisted that the parolee must waive the privilege. The Court of Appeal says otherwise.

The court found that Corona should be commended, rather than threatened, for seeking additional therapy, at least absent the state’s ability to identify a “nefarious reason” that he did so. Requiring waiver of the privilege would be an unreasonable parole condition.

Nor is waiver needed to prevent Corona from unknowingly posing a threat to others, the court reasons, because the psychotherapist is already obligated to disclose such a threat under Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: California Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Parole

Tags:

February 21, 2008

O.J.’s Jurisdictional Challenge Goes Nowhere

Does a court need to have personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor at the time it renews a judgment in order for that renewal to be valid? In Goldman v. Simpson, case no. B200082 (2d Dist. Feb. 20, 2008), O.J. Simpson moved to vacate the renewal of the judgment against him on the ground it was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because he resided in Florida at the time the court renewed the judgment. He appealed from the denial of the motion to vacate. The Court of Appeal affirms.

Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, subdivision (a) provides in part that “[t]he renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment.” Simpson contended that because lack of personal jurisdiction could be raised in an action on the judgment, he could raise it in his motion to vacate. However, a successful jurisdictional defense in any action on the judgment would have to attack jurisdiction to enter the original judgment. The court notes that “it is an entirely different matter to contend that the renewed judgment must be vacated because the debtor has insufficient personal contacts with the state to confer personal jurisdiction at the time of the renewal.” (Emphasis in original.)

The court finds no independent jurisdictional requirement for renewal. Code of Civil Procedure section 410.50, subdivision (b) provides that once subject matter and personal jurisdiction have been established, this jurisdiction “continues throughout subsequent proceedings in the action.” The court logically holds that renewal of a judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.120 is a “subsequent proceeding” for purposes of section 410.05o, for at least two reasons: (1) the renewed judgment exists only as a derivative of the original judgment, and (2) renewal under section 683.120 is a purely ministerial act that merely extends the life of the original judgment.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: California Procedure, Judgment, Jurisdiction

February 19, 2008

Treated Like Cattle

The recent, highly publicized recall of more than 143 million pounds of beef may make Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes, case no. F052009 (5th Dist. Feb. 15, 2008) more relevant to some people than it otherwise would have been. 

It’s a suit brought by the Fund against a calf rancher, alleging violation of Penal Code section 597t for confining animals without an “adequate exercise area.”  Plaintiffs also include consumers who allege violation of the unfair competition statutes.  The consumers “reasonably presumed” that dairy products they purchased were produced from animals kept in compliance with the law and alleged that they lost money by purchasing dairy products that were illegally produced. 

The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.  The Court of Appeal affirms.

On the Fund’s cause of action for violation of the penal code, the court determines that the legislature did not intend a private right of action by private parties. The comprehensive legislative scheme for the incorporation of humane societies for the prevention of cruelty for animals effectively “deputizes” those societies “to aid local authorities in the enforcement of anticruelty laws,” indicating that there was no legislative intent to create a private right of action by enacting Penal Code section 597t.

The consumers’ claim fails because they fail to allege injury.  They failed to allege any misrepresentations, that the dairy products they purchased originated with the defendant, or that the products were inferior in any way.  Their complaint merely alleged that they were deprived of the “benefit of the bargain” — not enough for standing.  They argued on appeal that the products were morally tainted by the treatment of the calves that later joined dairy herds.  That might have been enough prior to 2004, the court notes, but the amended UCL requires that a private plaintiff have suffered “injury in fact and [have] lost money or property.”  (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.)  Economic harm is required; moral taint doesn’t suffice.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: California Procedure, Unfair Competition

Tags: ,

February 18, 2008

Collateral Estoppel and the Exhaustion Doctrine

Must a whistleblower whose claim is denied at the administrative level exhaust his judicial remedies by petitioning for mandamus in the Superior Court before he may file a civil suit under the Whistleblower Act? That was the apparent question in CALPERS v. Superior Court, case no. C054168 (3d Dist. Feb. 15, 2008), where CALPERS contended that its demurrer to the civil suit should have been upheld because the plaintiff, whose whistleblower administrative claim had been denied by the State Personnel Board, did not challenge the SPB executive officer’s findings by petitioning for mandamus.

The answer is, “it depends.” That’s because the issue isn’t so much whether the statute requires exhaustion — it doesn’t — but because the findings have collateral estoppel effect. If the findings are not enough to bar a civil claim, then the plaintiff can proceed despite not petitioning for mandamus. But if the administrative findings preclude the civil claim, the whistleblower needs to challenge adverse findings successfully to preclude their collateral estoppel effect:

If, as plaintiff would like, the statute and the amended regulation were divorced from a complicated body of case law on the binding effect of administrative findings in subsequent litigation, we could accept the plain reading of the statute, bolstered by the regulation, and conclude a whistleblower need not be encumbered by the administrative findings of the SPB in his civil action under the Whistleblower Act. We are not, however, at liberty to pretend the thorny problems posed by collateral estoppel do not exist. As a result, even if we were to accord great weight to the SPB’s construction of [Government Code] section 8547.8’s administrative exhaustion requirement, we conclude that the plain language of the statute simply does not resolve the more difficult dilemma posed by collateral estoppel.

The court affords collateral estoppel effect to the executive officer’s findings — and thus finds the civil claim barred –  even though the findings were based solely on documentary evidence and argument and the whistleblower’s request for a full evidentiary hearing was denied:

Thus, it appears the investigation became a contested proceeding based on opposing evidentiary submissions. The executive officer served as a neutral adjudicator and was required to and did consider the parties’ documentary evidence as well as arguments. “[S]o long as the agency is required by law to accept and consider evidence from interested parties before making its decision,” the proceedings, even if entirely documentary, satisfy the hearing requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. [Citations.]

Since, as we have concluded, the SPB’s decision was made as the result of a proceeding in which evidence was required to be given and considered by the executive officer, its validity can be challenged by a petition for a writ of mandate. Here, plaintiff chose not to challenge the adverse findings by way of a petition for a writ. As a result, those findings cannot be relitigated in a whistleblower civil action and respondent court erred by overruling PERS’s demurrer.

This decision initially struck me as fundamentally unfair. No one could complain of collateral estoppel effect for findings made after a full evidentiary hearing. But in this case, the whistleblower’s request for an evidentiary hearing had been denied and the findings were based exclusively on documentary submissions. Even the court, in light of inherent flaws it notes in the administrative procedure, seems to regret that it must issue this decision :

Without exempting whistleblowers from pursuing the administrative proceedings it requires them to commence, we must apply traditional principles of collateral estoppel, and despite the distinct infirmities present in the administrative proceedings, we conclude that any adverse findings rendered by the SPB have a preclusive effect in subsequent civil litigation unless challenged by a writ of administrative mandamus.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Administrative Law, California Procedure, Writ Review

February 14, 2008

Review of “Private Attorney General” Fee Awards

Kimberly Kralowec at The Appellate Practitioner points out a case from earlier this month, Roybal v. Governing Board of the Salinas City Elementary School District, case no. H030596 (Jan. 11, 2008, ordered published Feb. 6, 2008), in which the Court of Appeal neatly summarizes the proper standards of review to apply when reviewing attorney fee awards made pursuant to California’s “private attorney general” statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The case recognizes the Supreme Court’s 2006 departure from the one-size-fits-all “abuse of discretion” standard in recognition that some awards may be due more deferential review in light of their fact-intensive nature, while those revolving around legal issues like statutory interpretation should be closely scrutinized. See her post for the money quote from the case.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Procedure, Attorney Fees, California Procedure, Post-Trial Practice, Standard of Review

Tags:

February 1, 2008

Preserving Evidentiary Objections for Appeal from a Summary Judgment

Last Friday, the California Supreme Court granted review in Reid v. Google, Inc., case no. S158965. The Supreme Court states the following as one of the issues for review: ”Are evidentiary objections not expressly ruled on at the time of decision on a summary judgment motion preserved for appeal?”

Until now, the answer has generally been “no.” That’s a rule that has always rankled me because securing a ruling can be out of the objecting party’s hands. No matter how much prodding one does, the court may fail to rule.

Tom Caso at the Opening Brief pointed out this likelihood last October, when he covered a series of decisions creating a conflict on this issue in the courts of appeal.  CalBizLit posted on Friday that trial court practice as to how a court purports to rule on the objections has been “all over the map.”

It will be good to get this issue settled.  The parties have only so much control over the state of the record sometimes. (Just ask the Oakland Raiders, for an example in another context.)

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: California Procedure, Evidence, Summary Judgment, Waiver of Issues

« Older Posts