Courts Monitor Publisher Participates In New Film

California Courts Monitor Publisher Sara Warner was interviewed last week for a new documentary by Wayne Ewing, the award-winning filmmaker perhaps best known for his series of biopics on Hunter S. Thompson, creator of “gonzo journalism.” Ewing has also produced and directed several political documentaries, including a pair of judicial-focused films in 2004 called “Benched” and “The Last Campaign.”
 
In text accompanying the interview, the filmmaker explains that he hoped to begin principal photography on a new project during a San Francisco legal conference, but that he was not admitted. However, he adds, Sara Warner was. Find the interview, and more about the documentary and Ewing Films, here.

Long Beach Courts Move To New Public-Private Built Building

 
In an era of closing courthouses, a new one has opened. The $340 million, 531,000 square foot facility opened this week near the five-decades-old courthouse it’s replacing. It features two dozen courtrooms and will no doubt raise debate over how to pay for improved facilities. That is because it is the first to be built as a public-private partnership, complete with retail space.
The new Gov. George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach. (Photo was published in the Los Angeles Times article "No rats and no lines, new Long Beach courthouse opens for business" on September 9, 2013.)

The new Gov. George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach. (Photo was published in the Los Angeles Times article “No rats and no lines, new Long Beach courthouse opens for business” on September 9, 2013.)

 
The deal is that a group of real estate developers actually build the courthouse, paying for construction up front, and the state pays the cost plus interest over the next 35 years. Some critics of California’s court management say the public-private deal illustrates that the state is not all that great at building things. The Los Angeles Times covered the courthouse opening without noting the massive cost overruns of the state-only construction effort, but it did note that staffers were pushing leather chairs from one courthouse to the next.

 

Check out the story here

Litigation Rush Brings Another Firm To L.A.

The delays and backups in California civil courts might be hitting families and small-claims litigants hard, but the big boys continue to find the state a welcoming venue. The latest is DOAR Litigation Consulting, a complex-case consulting firm which announced that it both acquired a Houston-based firm and opened an office in downtown L.A. 
 
From the company’s press release: “‘Lawsuits of major significance are being adjudicated in California and Texas,’ says Paul Neale, chief executive officer of DOAR. For instance, citing a 2013 Fulbright & Jaworski Litigation Trends Survey, Mr. Neale says 56% of U.S. technology companies faced at least one $20 million-plus lawsuit in 2012, a steep rise from only 18% in 2011. These firms are heavily concentrated in California’s Silicon Valley as well as in Austin, Texas. Across all industries, the number of companies facing at least one lawsuit where more than $20 million was at stake rose from 23% in 2011 to 31% in 2012, according to the Fulbright & Jaworski survey. The study also points out that the number of oil and gas companies reporting that 50 or more lawsuits have been filed against them over the past year has doubled to 27% since 2011.”
 
The company has other stats about California and Texas lawsuits, noting that area “… also popular venues for patent litigation filings. Nationally, the number of patent cases filed in 2012 soared 29% to a record 5,189 cases, according to PwC’s 2013 Patent Litigation Study, with Texas and California courts accounting for nearly 40% of them. The Texas Eastern Federal District Court in particular is perceived as “plaintiff-friendly,” and because patent holders are able to “shop” for favorable venues, despite efforts to deter the practice, it was the venue for 22% of all patent-related suits filed in the U.S. in 2012.”
 

For anyone waiting more than a year for fairly basic civil litigation to find a day in court, we can welcome DOAR to the waiting room. Find their press release here.

ADA Case Tackles Major Access Liability Issue

 
If a person with disabilities is denied access in violation of the state’s Disabled Persons Act (CDPA), should they receive compensation just once for the violation or for each time they encountered the violation? A Long Beach resident is arguing the later, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is asking the California State Supreme Court for help understanding an “ambiguous” law. The case involves a paraplegic who sued over improperly curb cut-outs, and he argues that he should be paid for each time he encountered the problem. A lower court ruled the other way, awarding $17,000; he says the number should be $440,000. 
 
The case might be seen as important in the wake of California court closures and cutbacks. One of the legal arguments against the changes is that people with disabilities are, in effect, denied access to the courthouses. As one observer noted: If they moved the wheelchair ramp across the parking lot, that would be a violation. So why not if they move it 25 miles away?” This case might imply that liability goes beyond a single penalty to include each time a person is denied access, a significant change.
 
As usual, Tim Hull at The Courthouse News makes the complex easy… read it here

California Courts Monitor ‘Special Report’ Update now on stands and available for download

When we published our printed “Special Report” earlier this year, it detailed a court crisis facing a difficult season. Sometimes, it seemed that the looming cuts, coming after years of cuts, were mostly positioning for the ongoing state budget battle. In addition to our daily online offerings, we promised to update the print report at the end of summer, so that’s what we did, and it is now available in local coffee shops and newsstands or you can download it by clicking here

The takeaway? It was as bad, and sometimes worse, than expected. An environment of fear and insecurity only became more so. And we marveled at the number of people who would talk about courts issues, but only on condition we never name them. Think of that. These are people who are mostly afraid that judges — judges! — will actually punish them for voicing opposition. And some of those fearing retribution are lawyers.

In this Update, we have included more new material than we intended and highlighted one of our judicial profiles in a blatant attempt to show relevancy to a new audience — the national civil courts community. You can access the original here on our website or contact us directly at scw@californiacourtsmonitor.com for a printed copy.

And let us also say Thank You for the warm reception and backroom briefings prompted by our coverage. Our pledge is to get better and that our mistakes will be those of the head, not the heart. 

Courts Monitor launching national edition

The California Courts Monitor, “your daily ration of civil justice rationing,” is launching a national edition. The National Courts Monitor will bring the same focus to the crisis in United State’s civil courts as it has to California courts, according to Publisher Sara Warner.  

The announcement was made in San Francisco Friday and timed to accompany a national asbestos litigation conference. The CCM also released an “update” of its Special Report on the California civil courts funding crisis, a newspaper-styled print edition that was distributed in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The publisher also announced that the website will begin producing similar print editions that focus on specific events, including state budget hearings and legal conferences.
 
“We’ve evolved into an online community resource for the civil courts community and our goal is to build on that,” said Warner. “And part of that is the combination of online and print.”
 
The national edition, she added, will also produce print editions focused on specific civil justice events or issues, especially when they involve funding the justice system.

She said the NCM will begin publishing online in the first quarter of 2014, quipping “is that vague enough for you?” The California website began publishing with a more general courts focus in 2012, but shifted to civil courts funding issues as a spate of budget cuts slashed through the judicial system. In addition to daily aggregation updates and occasional original reporting, the CCM has produced two newsprint products fashioned as “special reports” on courts issues.

Already? For 2014 Courts Face A Zinger

 
Apparently it’s not too early to begin fearing at least one aspect of California court spending next year. As of the 2014-15 fiscal year starting July 1, 2014, trial courts will no longer be able to maintain reserves greater than one percent of annual appropriations, reports Rachel Stine in The Coast News, who quotes a court official explaining that “… these reserve funds have previously been used to finance large projects, including technology upgrades, as well as expenditures during low revenue years…”
 
In other words, it allowed a particular court to squirrel away some cash. And that goes away next year. The newspaper report also outlines the increasing difficulty facing San Diego civil courts, and notes the closing of yet another juvenile justice facility. Court officials explained to Stine that “… there is a lack of community outreach to legislators and politicians about the funding for the judiciary branch” and added that their efforts lobbying with other bar associations and encouraging their clients to campaign for more court funding has only gone so far.
 
“There is no constituency that is banging on the door and saying, ‘We need our courts to be funded,’” said one official. Read the report here
 

Sacramento Superior Court “stuck” with sheriff’s budget shortfall

According to a report by the Sacramento Bee, the Sheriff’s Department had notified Sacramento Superior Court in July that they expected a combination of funding shortfall and added costs totaling $2.2 million.  Sheriff’s officials had told Superior Court managers that they’d have to pull as many as 15 deputies off the security detail to offset the shortfall.

According to the report, “Some judges reacted to the notification with zinging emails that forecast danger to themselves and the public if a reduction of that size became a reality. Chris Volkers, the court’s executive officer, threatened to sue if Sheriff Scott Jones went ahead with the cut.”

Court officials and the Sheriff’s Department came to a resolution… including $600,000 in increased funding from the state. 
 
While the issue is resolved for now, the bailiff’s budget may continue to be a drain on the court system. According to the report, “Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl said she expects a repeat of the security funding face-off with the Sheriff’s Department next year.” Earl also points out that “there’s no real audit procedures in place” to assure the funding is spent appropriately.
 
“We don’t have any leverage obviously because we don’t hold the money,” Earl said. “We’re stuck being an unintended victim of this, I think.”
 

Courts Praised For Decisions On Prop. 65 Cases

It’s not every day you get a significant insurance recovery firm singing the praises of California’s justice system. Yet firms like Proskauer Rose LLP are doing just that in the wake of some judicial decisions. In a web-posted story headlined “California Judiciary, Not Governor, Leading Effort To Reign In Proposition 65 Abuse,” the firm established that “… Governor Brown had called for sweeping changes to the Proposition 65 regime to reduce the potential for ‘frivolous shake-down lawsuits’ under the statute.”
 
However, the report added, “facing pressure from the plaintiffs’ bar, the Governor’s office recently released a much more modest proposal to amend Proposition 65. The proposal would expand slightly the statute’s exemption for small businesses; permit the relevant state agency greater flexibility in determining safe-exposure levels; and subject payments made in lieu of civil penalties to greater scrutiny.” But then the firm outlined leadership from the civil judiciary, including decisions on real-world testing for lead content in common foods.
 
Wait. Are we not told that the California courts are anti-business? Well, for an example of California civil decisions being pro-business check out the post here.

Next Battle For Court Workers: Outsourcing

Now that the dreaded courthouse layoffs have become the new reality, another issue is inching toward center stage for the justice system: outsourcing. The legislature seems ready to limit trial court outsourcing, but opposition is mounting against legislation that would require court managers to actually show promised savings. Lorn Kaye of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education laid out the pro-outsourcing argument at foxandhoundsdaily.com recently, noting that the courts are already outsourcing work ranging from child custody evaluations to security officers.

The new bill would “require specified standards to be met if a trial court intends to enter into a new contract” or extend existing contracts for “any services that are currently or customarily performed by that trial courts employees as of July 1, 2012.” Among other things, the court will have to “clearly demonstrate” actual overall cost savings. See the bill here.

The bill, says Kaye, has already passed the house and is headed for the California Senate. That means it could rumble about as the legislature passes last-minute bills in front of ending its current session this Friday (Sept. 13). Stay tuned. Read the argument that’s being made here.