Stat Report Getting Very Cautious Reception

September 26, 2013 By
That Court Statistics Report we’ve noted earlier is getting a very, very cautious reception in the justice community. Look for serious spinning later, but for now we’ll offer an example that illustrates the mood. The MetNews has a good story with highlights from the report, and this statement from Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice Douglas Miller, chair of the significant Executive and Planning Committee:  “The Court Statistics Report is a useful reference document that provides an annual snapshot of statewide filings data and indicates multi-year trends… the raw data raises questions that require more in-depth analysis before drawing any conclusions.”
 
So there. Justice Miller, after noting that more analysis is required, also noted that minds are made up on a couple of things. “Although we’re uncertain about the conclusions, council members and our justice system partners are certain about how budget cuts have affected the public and have impacted access to justice—including reduced hours and closed courtrooms, fewer law enforcement officers on the street, and the reallocation of resources to focus on certain case types or services.”
 
Read the MetNews report here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , ,

Caseload Report Out, Will Have Budget Implications

September 24, 2013 By
 
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.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Long Beach Courts Move To New Public-Private Built Building

September 20, 2013 By
 
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. 

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Litigation Rush Brings Another Firm To L.A.

September 18, 2013 By
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.

Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , ,

Already? For 2014 Courts Face A Zinger

September 12, 2013 By
 
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. 
 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Court: Landlords Have Right To Weekend Access

September 5, 2013 By
CASES: In a decision with implications for renter’s rights in civil actions, the California Court of Appeals has ruled that tenants must grant landlords weekend access to property so they can show it to prospective buyers. The court was actually upholding a previous decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ruth Kwan in favor of a Santa Monica condo owner. The owner had sued the tenant for refusing to allow open-house viewing on weekends, although “by appointment” viewings were allowed.
 
State law says renters must grant access for showings during “normal business hours.” To find that weekends fit that wording, the court found that the “community” standards were those of the real estate community. The Metropolitan News-Enterprise explains that the appeals court said that “… since the relevant community is real estate agents, and it was undisputed that those agents work on weekends, the trial judge correctly concluded that weekend hours are not excluded from the statutory definition.

Not everyone will agree with that “normal business hours” decision, and a law professor from San Diego blogged about how much power it could give a less-than-perfect landlord. Shaun Martin wrote: “Imagine that you have a tenant you don’t like. She’s got rent control. She’s got kids. She requires you to actually do repairs. Whatever. She’s a huge pest. Here’s an easy solution for you: Put the place up for sale. Set the price at 20% or so above market.  If you get a sale, great. Huge profit. That almost certainly will not happen. But like you care. You hold open house after open house.  Two weekends a month.  Like here. If it takes a year, so be it. No skin off your back. Not like you’ve got to do anything. You’re not even there.”

Read details of the case in the Met-News here.

And see Prof. Martin’s blog here.

Filed Under: Cases Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Next Budget Milestone: Sept. 13

August 27, 2013 By
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.
Filed Under: Community Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Paper Notes $93 Million Question For Trial Courts

August 20, 2013 By
The Desert Dispatch newspaper in San Bernardino County is among few outlets noting that the California Judicial Council will decide THIS WEEK where to allocate up to $93 million of “special funds” to support trial courts. Meeting in San Francisco starting Thursday, that group will evaluate recommendations from yet another committee, the “Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee.”
 
Citing the “state judiciary,” the Desert Dispatch says “… the two special funds provide primary support to self help centers, technology support and initiatives, the civil litigation program, education of judges and court staff and reimbursement for other court costs.” To some, especially to labor leaders, that seems like money that is not going directly to save courthouse jobs – an issue that links back to the state budget mandate for some budget increases to target jobs and keeping courthouses open.
 
To read more, check out the story here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Courts Begin New System For Rationing Budget

August 7, 2013 By
It was just a “drop in the bucket,” according to California’s chief courts fiscal officer, but the restored funding from our recently passed state budget is being allocated under a new formula that creates winners and losers. The San Francisco Appeal website has a good accounting of its local situation, noting that the “increase” actually “… still leaves the superior courts $201 million short of the amount received last year, on top of previous cuts of $214 million.”
 
The website explains “… the new allocation formula, developed by an advisory committee of judges and court executives, takes account of varying court workloads that may have changed in recent years because of population growth or other factors. The previous formula, used for the past 15 years, was based primarily on the share each superior court had in 1998, the year the state government took over court funding from the individual counties. That approach didn’t keep up with increased court workloads in counties where the population grew faster.”
 
The $60 million added to the state budget at the last minute is considered “new” spending and will come under the new guidelines.
 
In the Bay Area, it’s been widely reported that Contra Costa, Monterey, Solano and Sonoma county superior courts will get more funding under the new system than they would have under the old formula. Los Angeles Superior Court is also expected to get a slight increase over what it would have gotten before.
 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Prisons Offer Lessons For Courts Rationing

August 5, 2013 By
There are lessons for civil justice advocates in the ongoing soap opera over California’s prison overcrowding. One is that the state can and will shift its responsibilities to counties, in this case moving inmates to county jails. Another is that the “miracle” of Gov. Brown’s “balanced budget” hinges on many such moves to effectively de-fund agencies. And yet another is that it may take years and years, but the chickens do come home to roost.
 
The news is that a U.S. Supreme Court decision pretty much gives the state a late December deadline for meeting the terms of a 2009 ruling by a  special three-judge panel. That panel said that the state’s 33 prisons were too overcrowded to provide prisoners adequate medical and mental health care. The governor has already met much of the court’s demand from what he calls a “realignment program,” which simply shifted low-level offenders from state prisons to county jails.
 
It’s unclear what, exactly, the state will do. But it’s worth noting that they have already shifted many “low-level” non-violent inmates to the counties. That means those left in prisons are those that did not make the cut for county jails. And yet another lesson for the civil courts, where cutbacks have also impacted the ability of the disabled to attain public services, that the state sometimes responds only when ordered to respond.
 
As usual, Howard Mintz (@hmintz)at the Mercury News newspaper makes a complex situation easy to understand. Read his article here. 
 
 
Follow CCM on Twitter @CACourtsMonitor
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»