Plumas County, a Sierra Nevada community located near the Nevada border in northwestern California, has now lost three of its four court facilities, the newspaper noted, with the Greenville court closing in 2012 and Chester’s court closing last year. All cases in Plumas County will now be processed and heard at the Quincy courthouse, but with reduced court hours. The paper reported that, beginning Nov. 3, the court will be open from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Phones will be answered from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Despite a looming $22.7 million revenue shortfall, the state’s Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee, or TCBAC, will decline to offer an “alternative recommendation” on how funds are allocated to California courts, according to The Courthouse News Service. The CN report adds that “… deftly bypassed the option to revisit the original four allocation options. Instead, members narrowed their focus to the two pro-rata 2014-15 base allocation scenarios. Adoption of the second scenario means a 2 percent increase for San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Tehama, and Tulare counties over the first scenario.”
The news service also noted that “… the meeting was only the second afforded public access after Gov. Brown axed a provision initiated by the state Legislature earlier this year to open up all of the council’s advisory committee and subcommittee meetings.”
Read more here: Courthouse News Service
“Detained cases, they try to move more quickly,” TRAC Research Center director Susan Long told Hearst. “Secondly, most of those don’t have attorneys, and therefore they get deported. Removal decisions move much more quickly than any one that has an application for relief.
The story also noted that “… nationally, as of Sept. 30, 2013, EOIR had 350,330 pending cases. That’s up 56 percent from the 223,707 cases pending on Sept. 30, 2009. Between 2009 and the start of the influx of unaccompanied minors from Central America at the U.S.-Mexico border earlier this year, the number of new cases received in immigration courts actually was in decline, EOIR’s statistics show.”
Perrin Conferences hosted its latest Asbestos Summit in San Francisco, last week. The well attended conference was littered with defense and plaintiff attorneys, each using key cases to point fingers at the other for evidence of well… concealing evidence. Amid the fanfare, rumors and speculation, we found a few key take-aways worth noting:
- The “Garlock” case we’ve blogged about previously continues to be closely watched. The case suggests that victims may become “perjury pawns” if it turns out that indeed, plaintiff’s lawyers are having their clients say one thing in court, and another during trust settlements.
- Plaintiff’s attorneys are pointing to a recent case involving BASF and Cahill that demonstrates a defendant who allegedly concealed relevant evidence. According to the Wall Street Journal, a former chemist employed with BASF “testified about the company’s mid-1980’s collection of data, analyses and reports about the contamination, a collection of material which had disappeared.” The documents were later discovered in a Cahill storage facility.