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
 

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.

Long Waits Render Issues Nearly Moot, Ridiculous

At first, the story of Sergio Garcia seems merely interesting: He was born in Mexico but has spent much of his life in the United States, where he earned a law degree but is not yet a citizen. Now the California Supreme Court will decide if it sides with Garcia’s supporters, which happen to include the state’s attorney general, or with the Obama Administration, which opposes giving professional degrees to non-citizens.
 
But the issue seems almost beside the point when you realize that Garcia has waited FOUR YEARS for a court decision on his case, and according to a story by Howard Mintz in the San Jose Mercury News “… his immigration status has been in flux since 1994, when he returned from years of schooling in Mexico to rejoin his family and finish high school in Durham. His father and most of his siblings are citizens, but the sluggish federal visa process for Mexican immigrants has slowed his bid for legal status.”
 
Mintz notes that “… at the current pace, Garcia, who is too old for a federal program that aids some illegally brought into the country as youths, estimates he will not get his green card until about 2019 — and he does not want to wait that long to be eligible to be a lawyer.” This could be a valid issue, and the state bar wants to award the license, but when it takes four years to get a true day in court and you’re backed up about a QUARTER CENTURY in the immigration process, at what point is the “issue” a joke? And remember, the courts are slowing down with budget cuts.
 
“I’m very excited to get my day in court,” Garcia told the Mercury News, showing a gift for understatement that will serve him well if he actually becomes an attorney.
 

HuffPo Blogger Hits L.A. Courts Pretty Hard

Editor’s Note: The CCM will not be updated Monday due to the Labor Day holiday. See you Tuesday!
 
Writer Steve Bevilacqua is not too happy with the L.A. courts and much prefers the no-frills justice handed out by Judge Judy. In a Huffington Post blog, he first wonders “… is a Hollywood soundstage the best place to find true justice in Los Angeles? Based on my legal experience, both real and televised, the answer is a resounding yes.” Then he writes that “… our court system is in the hands of self-serving clowns who care about nothing more than their own performance record. Looking at history, I suppose this isn’t anything new, but in this age of access and information, maybe it’s time the courts tried a little harder to fulfill their original purpose of setting things right.”
 
After outlining his ongoing legal battles stemming from getting hit by a car, he adds that “amazingly enough, in one extremely loud afternoon, my fiasco was set right by the modern-day Solomon known as Judge Judy. The actual court system spent months squeezing every technicality in their agonized efforts to send me to prison at the expense of the obvious truth. Judge Judy was direct and ferociously sensible.”
 
It’s a compelling story, but you wonder if he knows the small claims court in Santa Monica, which was the basis for all those People’s Court shows,  actually just closed?
 

Placer County Seeks Input On Next Cuts

 
Here’s a novel idea: A county Superior Court facing dramatic budget cuts actually asks for public input in what it should do. That is what’s happening in Placer County, according to a report by Kathy Robertson in the Sacramento Business Journal. That will offer another example for critics of the Los Angeles Superior Court who lament a lack of public input into recent cuts there.
 
The Business Journal says that the Placer County Superior Court faces a $1.8 million deficit in its 2013-14 budget. The newspaper says the “… the proposed baseline budget includes expenses of more than $17 million, almost $13 million in salaries, wages and benefits. This reflects a more than 40 percent reduction in filled positions since 2009, changes in employee compensation and discontinuation of some programs.” The report also notes that “new money” added to the courts budget in last-minute budget moves hardly makes up for long-term cuts. 
 
Read the story here

Next Budget Milestone: Sept. 13

The next chance at revising California’s budget is Sept. 13, and already the judicial branch is finding that the governor is unlikely to treat it as a special “separate” branch of government. The Courthouse News Service has a telling story about last week’s exchange between the state’s Judicial Council, which sets policy for the courts, and the state finance director, Michael Cohen.
 
The meeting was a briefing on upcoming state spending process. The CNS reports that “… some judges were more specific in their concerns, such as the governor’s plan to sweep the trial courts’ reserve funds, used to meet obligations like payroll, into one statewide pot. Under the plan, courts are to keep only one percent of their operating budgets in reserve.” That’s a problem for some systems because each of the state’s 58 court systems is, in effect, an independent entity for many functions like paying bills.
 
Director Cohen also noted that the days of a governor simply taking the judicial budget and “passing it on” to the legislature are unlikely to return. Read the Courthouse News story here.

Inmate Release Offering Lessons For Civil Courts?

For those seeking court reform, whether civil or criminal, the ongoing issue of releasing some 10,000 California inmates offers some potential lessons. For one thing, it suggests that the only real reason this issue is being addressed is that a federal court has ordered the release, prompting a shift in attitude. Exhibit I in this discussion has become a Los Angeles Times editorial that even blamed poor news coverage for part of the problem.
 
And the Times did not hesitate to say that the “… [court]’s] population reduction order, and the courts’ hard line on enforcing it, has moved the state and counties, reluctantly, to set priorities for prison space and consider alternative community-based sentencing. There is little evidence to suggest that state officials will move faster or smarter if the order is softened.” 
 
In effect, the newspaper is saying that the only reason the issues of addiction and repeat crimes are being addressed is that a court order eliminated a “headline-by-headline” political approach that ignored core challenges. That’s not only quite an indictment, but it suggests that any reform movement on the civil side of the courts equation will face a long road before obtaining improvements. It also suggests that only federal court pressure, say from problems with ADA compliance, will force the state to move.
 
Check out the Times take here.