California Courts Directory and Fee Schedule … and so much more!

California Courts Directory and Fee Schedule … and so much more! It’s a handy compendium.

Are you trying to figure out which branch of a superior court to file your papers, DMV codes, the court fee schedule, court locations, county officers, sheriff service table and fees and not having much luck?

Here’s the easy answer…the California Courts Directory and Fee Schedule.  This annually published small book has a wealth of information.

Published by the California Court Association, you can find the answers quickly and easily. There’s also information which could be tricky to find, fees for bankruptcy and federal courts, probation department information, prisoner locator numbers for both state and federal facilities. Each time you look through it, you can find more information.  I just found the map of the counties and the list of county seats.

All this information is in a very small, handy to use package.

Ask for it at the Reference Desk and see for yourself.

* Library currently has 2012; 2013 due in library mid-January.

Post-Foreclosure Evictions: Procedural Guidance

Pursuant to CCP 1161a-1161c, special procedures apply when a mortgage lender or buyer of a foreclosed property seeks to initiate unlawful detainer proceedings against the former property owner or the tenants of the former owner.  Although these procedures must be followed carefully to avoid delay in the eviction process, many of the traditional landlord-tenant practice guides offer little guidance for evicting the former owner or their tenants.

Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Landlord-Tenant Litigation, a new title from LexisNexis, is the exception. The authors of this practice guide discuss in detail the procedures for eviction under CCP 1161, with citations to recent appellate decisions. Chapter 4, “Termination of Tenancy,” includes explanation of applicable notice periods and requirements for terminating the tenancy, which differ for the former owner and for any tenants of the former owner. Chapter 5, “Unlawful Detainer” reminds readers that they cannot use the standard Judicial Council Unlawful Detainer Complaint form to evict after foreclosure, but must draft a complaint form that incorporates specific elements and allegations. A template for a “Complaint to Evict Residential Tenant After Sale Under Writ of Execution pursuant to CCP 1161a” is provided. The authors also discuss perfection of title, and the effect of local rent control ordinances on a buyer’s ability to evict a tenant from a foreclosed property.

Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Landlord-Tenant Litigation is available at the Main Library in Oakland.

On Continuances and Professionalism

Pro pers and young attorneys are often surprised to learn that there are no California Judicial Council forms available to request a continuance for a trial or hearing.  The reasoning behind this stems in part from a statutory admonishment to discourage continuances in the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Gov. Code, § 68600, et seq.).  Pursuant to Government Code section 68607, subdivision (g), judges are required to “[a]dopt and utilize a firm, consistent policy against continuances, to the maximum extent possible and reasonable, in all stages of the litigation.”  Accordingly, a party seeking a continuance will have to draft a motion on pleading paper and comply with the rules promulgated by the California Supreme Court and Judicial Council under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332. 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)(9) lists among the factors the courts consider in granting such a motion is if all parties have stipulated to the continuance.  Given the adversarial nature of judicial proceedings and acrimony that frequently arises, there might be a temptation to spite one’s opponent by refusing to consent to his or her request for a continuance.  Consider the following example from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.  Here attorney for the defense, Bryan Erman, requested a continuance because he was expecting his first child shortly before the commencement of the trial.  Despite the plaintiff’s counsel’s “lengthy and spirited” opposition to the motion, the judge granted the continuance.   In doing so, Judge Eric Melgren congratulated the expectant father and offered this admonishment to the attorneys:

Certainly this judge is convinced of the importance of federal court, but he has always tried not to confuse what he does with who he is, nor to distort the priorities of his day job with his life’s role.  Counsel are encouraged to order their priorities similarly.

Another federal judge, William S. Duffey, Jr., suggests that being civil toward one’s opponent can be rewarding in itself: “The incivility and hostility of litigation today not only makes this work more unpleasant, less satisfying, and less fulfilling, but it also serves as a barrier to what we are charged to do—to represent clients in the resolution of disputes by seeking just results.”  (On Encouraging Civility in A Life in the Law: Advice for young Lawyers (Duffey & Schneider, edits 2009) p. 59)  So before you go to the mattresses over your opponent’s request for a continuance, you might want to consider whether it’s really worth the effort—and make sure that you or your client will not need to request any favors from the other side. 

For Alameda County Law Library patrons who are seeking continuances, the library has a number of practice guides that may be useful for pro pers and attorneys.  For example, chapter 42 of CEB’s California Civil Procedure Before Trial, 4th ed., discusses the requirements and procedures and includes a sample notice and declaration.  And for newer attorneys, the library also has a display of titles offering practical advice for those beginning their careers.

New Web Design & URL for California Courts

January 2011 the California Courts web site will change from www.courtinfo.ca.gov to www.courts.ca.gov.

To Be Continued

Many of the patrons at the Alameda County Law Library seek information about continuances.  Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) at page 363, column 1, defines a continuance as “The adjournment or postponement of a trial or other proceeding to a future date.”  According to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), such motions are “disfavored.”  Nonetheless, courts have the discretion to grant them.  If you are seeking a continuance in California, several secondary sources can be extremely useful for understanding the substantive and procedural law and for seeing sample language for the required filings.  Particularly useful resources include:

• Chapter 136 of California Forms of Pleading and Practice Annotated (Matthew Bender)
• Chapter 42 of California Civil Procedure Before Trial (CEB)
• Chapter 21 of California law and Motion: Model Forms (Rutter)  (sample notice of motion, memorandum, declaration and proposed order only)

As with California, other jurisdictions generally frown upon continuances but will grudgingly grant them.  Occasionally the grounds for granting one are so extraordinary as to make headlines.  One recent continuance granted by a Texas court has become fairly well-known in the Bay Area.  The court granted an emergency motion for continuance to Darrell Cook, an attorney and Texas Rangers fan who wanted to attend this year’s Major League Baseball World Series in San Francisco. 

Other examples of sports-related continuances include one from December 2009, where an Alabama Court granted a continuance so that the attorneys for a defendant could watch the Alabama Crimson Tide play the Florida Gators in the SEC Championship Game.  In December of 2007, a Louisiana court granted a continuance when the Louisiana State University Tigers played the Ohio State Buckeyes at the Allstate BCS National Championship Game.  Another Louisiana court granted a continuance in January of that year when the New Orleans Saints played Chicago Bears for the NFC championship.  Also in Louisiana and also involving the New Orleans Saints was a January 2010 order granting a continuance where the court took judicial notice of “Saintsmania” and recognized that that the presence of jurors, attorneys, and court personnel at the game would “enhance[] the chances of the Who Dat [sic] Nation to acquire the long sought after Holy Grail—the Vince Lombardi Trophy.”

While the South (Louisiana in particular) has led the way with regard to sports-related continuances, courts elsewhere have also granted continuances for unusual grounds.  Just last week, U.S. Judge Kimba Wood granted a continuance to a defense attorney to attend his grandchild’s bris, its circumcision, should it be born a boy.  Had it been a granddaughter, eliminating the need for the continuance, Judge Wood’s response stated that “there will be a public celebration in Court, with readings from poetry celebrating girls and women.”

It should be noted, however, that attendance at a child’s bris soon may not be an option for some Bay Area attorneys and therefore not grounds for continuance.  A San Francisco group calling themselves intactivists are seeking to put a measure on next November’s ballot that would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a child in that city.

Filing Fees going up

The new fee increases will be in effect in Alameda County Superior Courts on Monday, October 25, 2010.

From the publishers of Litigation by the Numbers:

The Governor has signed SB 857 and the new filing fees are now in effect. Each county will begin collection of the new fees as soon as they can update their systems.

 The new fees are outlined below:

1.   First appearance in an unlimited civil action (over $25,000.00), Family law petitions, and Probate petitions by plaintiff(s) and each defendant will increase to $395.00. This fee increase applies to all types of filings in which the previous fee was $355.00 (civil, probate, family, etc…) 

2.   First appearance in a limited action ($10,000.00 up to $25,000.00) by plaintiff(s) and each defendant will increase to $370.00

 3.   First appearance in a limited action (under $10,000.00) by plaintiff(s) and each defendant will increase to $220.00

 Note: The above fees do not include the additional fees required for Unlawful Detainer filings (additional $15.00) or the surcharges imposed in Riverside County, San Bernardino County, or the City and County of San Francisco. 

4.   Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication will increase to $500.00 

5.   Application by counsel to appear Pro Hac Vice will increase to $500.00

 6.   Adds an additional $3.00 penalty to every parking violation

 7.   Additional increases in various criminal penalties and traffic fines

 8.   A fee for telephonic appearances (a fee payable to the court in addition to fees paid to vendors). Fee has not been determined yet.

California Courts Add YouTube and Twitter

The California Courts have an extensive web site at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov with everything from Judicial Council forms  to information from the Self-Help Center in English and from the Centro de Ayuda in Spanish.  The site map is at  www.courtinfo.ca.gov/sitemap.htm and a tour at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/tour/. Now California Courts are posting to YouTube and tweeting.  To follow CalCourts on Twitter sign up at twitter.com/signup?follow=CalCourts. Look at some of the new courthouses being constructed by going to www.youtube.com/californiacourts  plus find out about becoming a court interpreter.

Research Your Judge in Print & Online

Hoping to gain insight into a judge‘s proclivities, preferences, and possible biases, attorneys and self-represented litigants scheduled to appear before a judge often seek out sources of biographical information that discuss the judges formative influences and experiences.

The law library maintains two major sources of judicial biographical information, Daily Journal Judicial Profiles, a compilation of judicial profiles that have appeared in the San Francisco Daily Journal and the Los Angeles Daily Journal, and California Courts & Judges, a two-volume judicial directory published by James Publishing.

Daily Journal Judicial Profiles In addition to standard information about education and work history, the judicial profiles published by the Daily Journal frequently feature information about a judge‘s character and personal attributes, demeanor in the courtroom, hobbies and interests, pet peeves, community involvement, high profile cases, and attitude toward pro per litigants. Particularly illuminating are anecdotes from colleagues and the impressions of attorneys who have argued cases before the judge.

The law library maintains a complete collection of profiles for Northern California Superior Court judges, California Appellate and Supreme Court justices, California District Court judges, Ninth Circuit justices, and Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy judges.

California Courts & Judges, James Publishing
Organized alphabetically by last name, California Courts & Judges contains in-depth profiles of California state and federal trial and appellate judges and justices. In constructing the profiles, the authors solicit comments from district attorneys, public defenders, and attorneys who have tried cases before the judge. In the “Attorney’s Comments” section of each profile, the attorneys interviewed offer their perceptions concerning the judge‘s temperament/demeanor, intelligence/legal knowledge, handling of motions and continuances, effectiveness in facilitating settlements, prosecution or defense orientation, and courtroom management style. Profiles of retired judges and justices from California state, federal and bankruptcy courts are also included.

Web-Based Resources
The websites of the California state appellate courts and federal trial and appellate courts contain a wealth of factual information about sitting judges and justices that may be of interest to litigants, including their educational background, previous judicial appointments, professional experience, teaching experience, publications, memberships, and personal information.

• California 1st District Court of Appeal Justice Biographies: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/1stDistrict/justices.htm
• California Supreme Court Justice Biographies: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices.htm
• California Northern District Judge Biographies: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/district_judges.asp?d=5
• California Northern District Magistrate Judge Biographies: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/magistrate_judges.asp?d=5
• Ninth Circuit Court Justice Biographies: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/ninthcircuit/circuit_judges.html

This article originally appeared in the Winter 2010 issue of News From the Alameda County Law Library, the quarterly newsletter of the Alameda County Law Library: http://www.acgov.org/law/documents/Library_Newsletter_Winter2010.pdf

Judicial politics and gay marriage

On August 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit ordered a stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling on Prop 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2010, No. C 09-2292 VRW)  __F. Supp. 2d__ [2010 WL 3025614].  Pending the outcome of the appeal, California may join five other states and the District of Columbia in permitting same sex marriages.  In two states, New Hampshire and Vermont, recognition of same sex marriages was achieved legislatively.  Also, in the District of Columbia, the mayor signed into law a bill by the Council of District of Columbia. 

In the rest of the states, recognition of same sex marriage was reached judicially.  In Connecticut, the state Supreme Court struck down a law banning marriages in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (Conn. 2008) 957 A.2d 407.  In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court found a similar law unconstitutional in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (Mass. 2003) 798 N.E.2d 941.  So too did the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien (Iowa 2009) 763 N.W.2d 862.  Unlike these states, California’s prohibition on same sex marriage was struck down not by the state’s highest court, but by a federal trial court.  In fact, the Supreme Court of California upheld Prop 8 against a challenge in Strauss v. Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364. 

In Strauss, the majority of the Court decided that Prop 8 was an amendment to the state Constitution rather than a revision.  A revision occurs where there is a substantial alteration of the entire constitution and requires a two-thirds vote from each house of the California legislature and ratification by a majority of voters on a ballot initiative.  An amendment, on the other hand, requires only approval by a majority of the electorate on a ballot initiative.  Accordingly, the 52.24% of voters in favor of Prop 8 satisfied the constitutional requirement to amend. 

A cynic might suspect that that the Supreme Court of California’s decision was influenced by the justices’ personal interest in job security rather than upholding the Constitution.  Justices on California’s high court require periodic retention votes at the general election.  It would not be unprecedented for voters to oust the state’s Supreme Court justices for taking positions contrary to majority interests.  In 1986, voters decided not to reconfirm justices Rose Bird, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin subsequent to a campaign focusing on the justices’ opposition to the death penalty. 

It seems that Iowa may soon join California in removing justices from the state’s high court for its stance on a topic contrary to public opinion.  Iowa for Freedom, a grassroots campaign spearheaded by former gubernatorial hopeful Bob Vander Plaats, seeks to oust three justices for their “blatant judicial activism” in striking down the gay marriage ban.

Note: Chief Justice Ronald M. George recently announced plans to retire and was probably not be seeking reelection when he penned the majority decision in Strauss.

Judicial Legacies of California Governors

For court watchers, one measure of a governor’s (or president’s) legacy is that person’s judicial appointments.  For example, the cover story for this week’s issue of the Recorder concerns the potential mark Governor Schwarzenegger may leave on the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District in Sacramento.  The 11-seat court has been operating for the past 18 months with two vacancies as a cost savings measure.  Governor Schwarzenegger has appointed Louis Mauro to one seat and is expected to fill the other before leaving office.  In addition there may be as many as three more vacancies on that court: Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has been nominated to replace Chief Justice Ronald George on the Supreme Court of California, and appellate justices Arthur Scotland and Rick Sims have both announced plans to step down.  Of these three potential vacancies, Governor Schwarzenegger would be able fill two at most since Justice Cantil-Sakauye’s seat won’t become vacant until she’s confirmed after the end of the governor’s term.

But perhaps more interesting than Governor Schwarzenegger’s mark on the Third Appellate District is how slight his imprint on the state’s high court will be in comparison to many of his predecessors.  If Justice Cantil-Sakauye is confirmed, along with Justice Corrigan, Governor Schwarzenegger will have appointed just two Supreme Court justices.  The previous six governors have appointed an average of five justices each to the seven-seat Supreme Court.  Four of these previous governors left office with their own appointees as the majority of the sitting justices.  Governor Wilson appointed five justices, all of whom were sitting when he left office.  Governor Jerry Brown appointed seven justices, five of whom sat when he left.  Thanks largely to a vote to oust three of Governor Jerry Brown’s appointees, Governor Deukmejian also appointed seven justices, four of whom still sat at the end of his term.  But the governor who made the most appointments to the high court was the senior Governor Brown.  Jerry Brown’s father, Pat Brown, appointed eight justices, five of whom still sat at the end of his term. 

With now-Attorney General Jerry Brown running for governor, he might have the opportunity tie or surpass his father with regard to his total number of appointments to the Supreme Court of California.  The situation calls to mind what then-Attorney General Deukmejian replied when asked why he was running for governor of California instead of another term as AG.  He famously responded: “Attorneys General don’t appoint judges—governors do.”