Gov. Brown Vetoes Limits On Court Outsourcing

By MARIA DINZEO 

In a move bound to be greeted as anti-labor by union leadership, California Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have required any courthouse-job outsourcing to include proof that it would actually save money. In effect, unions representing court workers had argued that outsourcing simply moved public money into private pockets.
 
In his veto announcement Monday, Gov. Brown said the bill went too far and required “… California’s courts to meet overly-detailed and — in some cases — nearly impossible requirements when entering into or renewing certain contracts.” He also said “flexibility” was part of his decision.
 
As Courthouse News noted in its coverage, the bill was primarily backed by the California Court Reporters Association and the Service Employees International Union and was considered a response to Placer County Superior Court’s firing of its entire court reporter staff and replacement with private contractors. Read the CN story here.

Juvenile Court Issues Set For Dec. 4 ‘Summit’

Critics of how the Los Angeles Superior Court chose to close juvenile justice facilities may get a chance to air their concerns. The state court system is planning a Dec. 4 “statewide summit” hosted by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson.

Called the Summit on Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court, it will bring experts to Anaheim to “… examine truancy and school discipline policies creating a ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ for California’s children and youth.”

The state website says the summit will be paid for, in part, by private companies but does not name the sponsors. Find out more here.

Backlogs Prompt Some Courts To Re-hire

 
We’ve not heard about any plans in Los Angeles County, the nation’s largest trial court, but some other California court systems are re-hiring laid-off workers to deal with backlogs caused by, well, laying off workers. In particular, courts are looking at backlogs in family law cases.
 
It is interesting that the workers have reportedly been re-hired ONLY to deal with the backlog, leading to all kinds of labor questions. The Capital Public Radio station talked to some presiding judges (note that report is different from the print version). Read and listen to the story here.   

Gov. Considering Major Court-Outsourcing Bill

 
The civil courts community is keeping focus on a bill that would regulate how the California courts outsource their functions. The bill, AB 556, passed both the assembly and state senate with comfortable margins but now awaits Gov. Brown’s signature to become law. 
 
The debate, noted in The Courthouse News, boils down to how administrators want to replace court workers with contract employees. Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento said in an interview with CN, “In our opinion this bill is an overreach, not only into our discretion but into good business practices to reduce costs at a time when we have less funding.” But, the report notes, “… from the labor point of view, contracting simply transfers public funds into private hands.” 
 
“What you’re doing is exchanging wages and benefits for employees for a for-profit company,” said Michelle Castro with the union that represents many court workers. “The courts aren’t going to pay less money.” In its language, the CN notes, the bill conditions private contracts on a demonstration of savings.

You can read the report here

Caseload Report Out, Will Have Budget Implications

 
The California “Courts Statistics Report,” or CSR, is out, and this year the formerly obscure document is bound for new attention as it will become part of a new budgeting formula. In a desperate attempt to put some level of oversight into how the courts spend money, especially on the civil courts, the new budget laws will take into consideration caseloads as reflected in the report. In general, the overall Superior Court case filings are actually down overall, but most of that comes from relatively simple cases like small claims. The more resource-intensive complex cases continue to increase.
 
Doubtless more analysis of the information will be produced soon. At first read, it seems there’s plenty of information for virtually any political argument, depending on perspective. For example, are the more simple cases, which are more often filed by individuals rather than lawyers relative to more complex cases, “down” because we’re all getting along? Or are more people just walking away because we’ve cut assistance in filing such cases, or because they couldn’t endure the filing line.

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

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