|
................................................................Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction
.....................................................A. Course Perspective
p. 2, end of
first full sentence:
In 2006-2007, the number of Superior
Court civil filings increased from the previous year, from 1,418,490
to 1,461,111, continuing a steady annual upward trend. See 2008
Court Statistics Report, Statewide Caseload Trends 1997-1998
through 2006-2007 at pp. IX-X (Judicial Council of California).
..............................................B. Sources of Procedural Law
1. Primary Authorities
.... Case
Law
* p. 5, following cite for
Cohen, Berring & Olsen's [sic] How to Find the Law: The
successor to How to Find the Law (9th edition) is Kent C. Olson,
Olson's Principles of Legal Research (West 2009).
p. 13, Note 5: See also Caleb E. Mason, An Aesthetic Defense
of the Nonprecedential Opinion: The Easy Cases Debate in the
Wake of the 2007 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, 55 UCLA L.Rev. 643 (2008); Shenoa L. Payne, The Ethical
Conundrums of Unpublished Opinions, 44 Willamette L.Rev. 723
(2008) (recommending application of a uniform analysis that would
aid federal and state courts in evaluating the persuasive weight
of unpublished opinions). * See also Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller,
Edward H. Cooper, Richard D. Freer, Joan E. Steinman & Catherine
T. Struve, 16AA Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction
and Related Matters § 3978.10 (Supp.2009) (discussing evolution
and scope of FRAP 32.1).
p. 13, new Note 6: California's rule prohibiting citation of
unpublished Court of Appeal decisions has been challenged in
a federal lawsuit. The suit contends that CRC 8.1115 violates
the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it creates
selective prospectivity and it deprives appellants of obtaining
California Supreme Court review of unpublished opinions. The
district court granted a motion to dismiss the case, and that
ruling has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hild v. California Supreme Court, 2008 WL 544469 (N.D.Cal. Feb.
26, 2008).
....Rules
of Court
p. 22, new Note 4: Citing Trans-Action
and Datig, the Court of Appeal analyzed CCP sections 177.5
and 575.2, CRC 2.30, and various local rules to determine whether
the trial court properly imposed monetary sanctions against an
insurer for allegedly failing to negotiate in good faith during
a mandatory settlement conference. The Court found the statutes
and local rules inapplicable on their terms, but the question
remained whether CRC 2.30, substantially amended since Trans-Action,
permitted the sanctions ordered here on the ground that the insurer's
conduct violated a rule of court. The Court held CRC 2.30 inapplicable
because no rule of court requires meaningful participation in
settlement negotiations. The Court did not directly rule on the
validity of CRC 2.30, but noted that the Judicial Council has
authority under the California Constitution to adopt rules of
court and the means (through sanctions or otherwise) to enforce
those rules, as long as the provisions are not inconsistent with
statute. Vidrio v. Hernandez, 172 Cal.App.4th 1443, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d
178 (2009).
.....California
Code of Regulations
p. 26, new paragraph: Administrative
regulations are either quasi-legislative or interpretive. Quasi-legislative
regulations are those resulting from the Legislature's express
delegation of rule-making power to the administrative agency.
These regulations are entitled to substantial judicial deference.
Interpretive regulations, on the other hand, are those that represent
the agency's interpretation of statutory language. The degree
of judicial deference required for interpretive regulations depends
on several factors, including whether the agency's interpretation
is long-standing. Kawamura v. Organic Pastures Dairy Co., 160
Cal.App.4th 1374, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 500 (2008).
..........................................................C. Additional Research Resources
p. 28, immediately following
Hanft cite: See also Heather
C. MacFarlane & Suzanne E. Rowe, California Legal Research
(Carolina Academic Press 2008).
...........................................D. The Choice Between State and Federal
Court
p. 29, end of last full paragraph: Claims arising out
of the federal patent statutes are normally subject to exclusive
federal subject matter jurisdiction. However, in a California
state court action for breach of contract related to payment
of patent royalties, the state court has jurisdiction because
the cause of action neither sought a federal patent remedy nor
depended on the resolution of a substantial question of patent
law. Applera Corp. v. MP Biomedicals LLC, 173 Cal.App.4th 769,
93 Cal.Rptr.3d 178 (2009). But see Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton, 173 Cal.App.4th 675, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 220
(2009) (complaint containing allegations regarding regulation
of attorneys appearing before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
presented substantial question of patent law, falling under exclusive
subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts). |