................................................................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p. 13, Note 5: See also Caleb E. Mason, An Aesthetic Defense of the Nonprecedential Opinion: The Easy Cases Debate in the Wake of the 2007 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 55 UCLA L.Rev. 643 (2008); Shenoa L. Payne, The Ethical Conundrums of Unpublished Opinions, 44 Willamette L.Rev. 723 (2008) (recommending application of a uniform analysis that would aid federal and state courts in evaluating the persuasive weight of unpublished opinions).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p. 13, new Note 6: California's rule prohibiting citation of unpublished Court of Appeal decisions has been challenged in a federal lawsuit.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because it creates selective prospectivity and it deprives appellants of obtaining California Supreme Court review of unpublished opinions.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).