California judicial news

From Judgepedia

News about or affecting the judiciary in California.

California high court refuses to hear murder case

California: The California Supreme Court refused on Wednesday, February 3, to hear a defense petition to hear the case against Ashton Hurst. Hurst wan found guilty of stabbing and killing his stepfather, Robert Gauci, by the Los Angeles Superior Court and after an unsuccessful appeal to the 2nd District Court of Appeal the supreme court appeal was made.^[1]

California high court ruling on Jessica's Law

California: The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday,February 1, to uphold the provisions of Jessica's Law that pertain to housing restrictions as they apply to people convicted after the passage of Proposition 83. The court, however, has not yet ruled on the most pressing issue of the case, namely that it is broad, intrusive, and violate convicts' constitutional rights and has ordered further hearing on that subject. If the law is upheld in its entirety these restriction will apply even to offenders convicted prior to the law's conception.^{[1] [2]}

California judge to retire

California: Justice Steven Vartabedian of the Fifth District Court of Appeal has announced that he will retire on May 31 of 2010. Vartabedian has been a jurist for 29 years.^[1]

California Supreme Court challenges state's sexual predator law

San Fransisco, California: The California Supreme Court has challenged the constitutionality of the state's so called "Jessica's Law," that allows the state to hold sexual predators indefinitely and bans them from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. The court has asked the state to better argue why sexual predator's treatment different from other felons.^[1]

Candidate drops out of race for Los Angeles Superior Court

California: Nora A. Quinn, a law practitioner from Claremont, has dropped out of the race for an open seat on the Los Angeles Superior Court. Quinn's reasons for dropping was the increase in competition after it was announced that there will not be an election for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.^[1]

California judge retires

Stockton, California: Judge Cinda Sanchez Fox announced on Friday, January 22, that she would be retiring on disability. Fox, a 52 year old judge for the San Joaquin County Superior Court, was attacked by a man in the courtroom in March of 2009 and says that she hasn't recovered from the emotional damage.

In retirement she will receive 65% of her $178,789 a year salary and full medical benefits.^[1]

President renominates two judicial candidates

Washington, D.C.: President Obama renominated Louis B. Butler, Jr. and Edward Milton Chen to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, respectively. The Senate refused to confirm the nominations at the end of the 2009 legislative session in December, so the President tried again on January 20, 2010.^[1][2]

Federal nomination made for the Northern District of California

California: On the recommendation of Senator Barbara Boxer, President Obama has nominated California Superior Courts judge Lucy H. Koh to fill a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. ^[1] If Koh's nomination is approved by the Senate she would be the first female Korean-American federal judge in the country. ^[2]

New candidate for Los Angeles Superior Court announced

California: Administrative Law Judge Nora A. Quinn announced, January 19, that she is planning to run for a seat in the Los Angeles Suprerior Court. Quinn had served in a multitude of related legal jobs before arriving where is she is now as a judge for the Van Nuys regional office of the Special Education Division of the Office of Administrative Hearings.^[1]

Federal judge Florence-Marie Cooper deceased

California: Federal judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Florence-Marie Cooper has passed away. She joined the court in 1999 after being nominated by President Clinton. ^[1] She passed away at a Santa Monica hospital while being treated for lymphoma. ^[2]

Of her death chief justice of the Central District Audrey Collins said, "Our court is devastated by this loss. Florence personified the best qualities one could hope for in a federal judge - intelligence, analytical reasoning and endless patience combined with fairness, the unwavering ability to recognize and correct injustice to the individual, and a passion for justice." ^[3]

Tobacco firms ordered to pay woman who died from lung cancer

California: On January 14, the California Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds that the tobacco companies should not have to pay $2.85 million in damages to the family of a California woman who died from lung cancer after smoking for 26 years. The defendant's case was based on the argument that "said that the warning labels on cigarette packs were outweighed by tobacco company advertising that emphasized the "benefits" of smoking." The ruling is significant because it is the first such ruling after 1965 when the government began requiring warning labels on cigarette cartons.^[1]

Court-ordered plan to reduce prison overcrowding approved

Sacramento, California: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to reduce overcrowding in California prison was approved of on Tuesday, January 12, by a panel of three judges. The court-ordered plan aims to reduce prison populations by 40,000 inmates by 2012.^[1]

The Governor's plan includes keeping prisoners home with satellite tracking, allowing some felons to serve in county prisons instead of state prisons and reducing the sentences for crimes against property. This plan is the second proposed after the first one, in October, was refused by the judges saying that it did not meet target populations or deadlines.^[1]

The panel of judges includes U.S. District Judges Thelton Henderson and Lawrence Karlton and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt.^[1]

U.S. Supreme Court blocks TV cameras in Prop 8 courtroom

California: On Monday, January 11, the Supreme Court of the United States entered an interim order barring Judge Vaughn Walker from allowing real-time streaming in his courtroom of the federal trail on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California.

The high court's order remains in effect until the afternoon of Wednesday, January 13, while the court considers whether to make the order permanent.

The full text of the court's stay is:

"Upon consideration of the application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:09-cv-02292, permitting real-time streaming is stayed except as it permits streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in which the trial is to be held. Any additional order permitting broadcast of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order of this Court. To permit further consideration in this Court, this order will remain in effect until Wednesday, January 13, 2010, at 4 p.m. eastern time."^[1]

Governor's budget means cuts for prisons, health, welfare, and state pay

Sacramento, California: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the details of his $82.9 billion budget plan that attempts close a $20 billion difference in revenue and spending for the state of California by cutting about $8.5 billion from the previous plan. ^[1]

While the plan's list of things to cut or reduce does include health and welfare programs, as well as cuts in the state prison system and state workers' pay, funding for public schools and universities remains, for the most part, unaffected. However, if the state does not receive an expected $6.9 billion from the federal government, there will be another $4.6 billion in cuts for the budget.^[1]

Democrats on the state's legislature criticized the plan, claiming that the governor's administration mishandled money received from federal stimulus plans. Republicans liked the plan's downsizing of state government.^[1]

Federal trial on Proposition 8 to be televised

San Francisco, California:-Federal judge Vaughn Walker was given approval by the Ninth Circuit to allow the lawsuit involving Proposition 8 to be televised on YouTube^[1].

The Proposition 8 trial will be the first federal trial level case that will be televised. In December of 2009, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council allowed trial level courts to broadcast non-jury trials. In making the announcement, the judge told the courtroom: "I think it's worth trying in this case." ^[1]

The filming of the trial will be done with courthouse cameras, which will allow for a delayed feed of the trial's proceedings^[1]. To watch the coverage of the trial CLICK HERE. The trial will begin on January 11, 2010 at 11:30 AM-EST/8:30-AM-PST^[2].

Ninth Circuit suspends disclosure order on Prop 8 backers

California: California's Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals has suspended an order written by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. The suspended order of Judge Walker would have forced the campaign in favor of Proposition 8 to turn over internal campaign strategy documents to the court.^[1]

A 3-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit said in its initial ruling that Prop 8 backers were likely to win their case against disclosure, because, according to the panel, their argument that Walker's order violates their constitutional rights is likely to prevail.

Andrew Pugno said the court's order was "very encouraging. Free speech requires protection for citizens to engage in campaigns, and that is all we are asking for." Pugno is the attorney for the "Yes on Prop 8" plaintiffs in the case.

The documents were sought by the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Prop 8. Those plaintiffs are trying to establish that Prop 8 violates core federal constitutional protections. One of their lines of argument is that the backers of Prop 8 consciously wanted to suppress gay civil rights. In order to establish that conclusion, those plaintiffs wished to have access to internal campaign strategy documents of Prop 8 backers to see if any language in those documents would have tended to prove their case about what motivated Prop 8 supporters by revealing a "discriminatory animus."^[2]

Hearings on the federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Prop 8 begin on January 11, 2010 in San Francisco.

Nguyen confirmed to Central District of California

California: Jacqueline Nguyen was unanimously confirmed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 1, 2009. She is the first Vietnamese-American woman to serve the federal bench. ^[1]

Judge Nguyen was born in South Vietnam. She fled from the country with her family in 1975, after the fall of the government.^[2] She graduated from Occidental College in 1987 with an undergraduate degree and from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1991 with a law degree.^[3]

Nguyen began her legal career in 1991 as a private practice lawyer. In 1995, she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. She was then appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court in August of 2002 and continued to serve that court until receiving her commission for the Central District of California. ^[3][4]

Four federal judge nominees approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee

California: Four of President Obama's nominees for federal judgeships have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Dolly Gee and Jacqueline Nguyen were both approved unanimously by the committee for the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Richard Seeborg also received unanimous approval for his nomination to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, while Edward Chen received a vote split 12- 7 along party lines. ^[1][2]

The four nominees next face confirmation from the Senate as a whole.

District judge to resign due to insufficient pay

California: Stephen Larson, federal judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of California, has announced that he will resign from the court effective November 2, 2009 citing stagnant salaries of the federal judiciary as the reason for his departure. United States District Court judges were paid $169,300 in 2008, a 2.5% increase from the previous year. ^[1]

"The costs associated with raising our family are increasing significantly, while our salary remains stagnant and, in terms of purchasing power, is actually declining. The short of it is that I know I must place my family's interest, particularly the future of my children, ahead of my own fervent desire to remain a federal judge," he said. ^[2] Larson is married with seven children between the ages of 2 and 13. ^[3]

Audrey Collins, chief judge of the Central District of California, released a statement saying that the court is facing a "crisis of retention" and that the "crisis is due in large part to two factors: stagnating judicial compensation and ever-increasing caseloads." ^[4]

California courts seeking budget deficit solutions

California: Due to a statewide court system budget deficit of $414 million, money saving solutions are being sought in California. One such solution in the Superior Courts is that of closing for one day per month. All court workers - with the exception of judges who have constitutionally protected salaries - will have their pay docked for that day. The anticipated savings for this move is between $80 and $85 million. Some judges are voluntarily matching the pay cut. If all state judges take the pay cut, an additional amount of nearly $5 million could be saved.

This solution has met with concerns that it will increase or create a backlog in the judicial system. ^[1]

Four nominees named for federal California district courts

California: President Obama has named two nominees for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and two for the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The candidates named are awaiting their hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The judges nominated for the Northern District are federal magistrate judges Edward Chen and Richard Seeborg. The Central District candidates are Dolly Gee and Jacquelyn Nguyen. Of the four nominees, only Gee lacks prior experience as a judge.

Even if these four nominees are appointed, five vacancies remain in the California federal district courts, and two on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ^[1]

LAPD consent decree case

California: Federal judge Gary Feess lifted a decade-long consent decree on the Los Angeles Police Department on July 17, 2009.

The consent decree happened after the Rampart scandal which affected the anti-gang unit of the police force. The scandal was one of a number of incidents that bruised the image of the department during the 1990's. In 1999, a federal judge ordered that the Los Angeles Police appoint an independent monitor and to comply with 100 reforms including a ban on all racial profiling.

After noted improvements on how the LAPD conducted their operations, the independent monitor asked the judge for an end to the decree. In ending the decree, the judge approved a transition agreement that would move oversight of the department to Los Angeles Police Commission. The agreement orders units of the department to report to the police oversight body. Judge Feess told the parties that the court will keep jurisdiction over the agreement. ^[1]

Judge, state conflict over pay cut

California: In February of 2009 the Schwarzenegger administration and California Legislature approved a $2.00 per hour pay cut in the wages of in-home care workers for elderly and disabled Californians. The workers provide care for low income residents who meet certain criteria. The federal government provides half of the funding for the program.

Federal judge Claudia Wilken issued an injunction against the state's wage cut on June 26, 2009. She cited a federal law requiring that a study be performed prior to reducing costs in order to determine whether lowering payments to providers would deprive poor people of access to health care. Other federal judges have cited this law in reference to blocking reductions to doctors, dentists and pharmacies.

The Schwarzenegger administration has requested a stay of Wilkins order from the district's appellate court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ^[1]

Public pension data released

California: In early 2009 the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a taxpayer group surveying California pension payments, filed a Public Records Request for the names of retirees whose gross monthly pension benefits exceed $8,333 in any month in 2009. ^[1] In May of 2009, retired Contra Costa Sheriff's Deputy Donna Irwin filed a petition for a restraining order barring the release of the requested information. She claimed that releasing the amount of her pension would be an invasion of privacy. ^[2]

Lawyers for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility intervened in the case, arguing that taxpayer dollars used to pay public pensions are a matter of public record. They were joined in the lawsuit by the Contra Costa Times, the Los Angeles Times and the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

Judge Baskin ruled that publicly funded pensions are indeed a matter of public record, writing that: "Access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." He granted the Motion for Leave to Intervene to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility. ^[3] As a result, the Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association will release the names and pension amounts of former county employees who collect $100,000 or more per year to the Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility. ^[4]

Legislation reviewed by the Judicial Council

California: The Judicial Council’s Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee (PCLC), part of the Office of Governmental Affairs, reviewed legislation affecting the judiciary proposed during the 2009-2010 legislative session. Upon review, the Council issued an eight page report both describing the proposed bills and outlining the Council's position toward them. Of the 36 bills reviewed, the Council was a sponsor of 10 bills, supported 17 bills, was opposed to 7 bill, and held no position on the remainder. ^[1]

Legislation reviewed by the Judicial Council
The Judicial Council of California has reviewed legislation suggested by the 2009 Senate and Assembly, and offer this summery of approved bills: Status of 2009 legislation considered by the Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee.

New Judge Spent More Than $360,000 to Win Seat, Records Show

(9/22/2008) Financial intakes and expenditures for Los Angeles County judge races.

How to judge the judges

(5/29/2008) Point-counterpoint opinion in the LA Times notes the difficulty of running for judicial offices is that the posts are countywide, and it is difficult to connect with voters. Los Angeles County municipal courts to have consolidated with the larger Superior Court. Now in L.A. County, voters have a difficult time acquainting themselves with the would-be jurists.

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

(5/15/2008) Los Angeles Times coverage of the 4-3 supreme court ruling that declared the state's consitution protects "a fundamental 'right to marry' that extends equally to same-sex couples." The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George.

Do county payments to judges amount to bribes?

(4/22/2008) Two California "activists" lobbied Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate what they deem courtroom corruption by Los Angeles County Superior Court judges who receive "unwarranted" payments from Los Angeles County (i.e. the state). Even though legislation that requires judges to file financial disclosure forms already exists, the two argue that inquring minds have to unnecessarily probe the Secretary of State and County Registrar’s Office for said documentation.

Web site boasts quick lawsuits

(4/15/2008) Monterey, CA-- Sueeasy.com, an online portal that "allows users to browse pending court actions online and join other consumers' cases" starts to make headwaves.

California Supreme Court rejects living wage appeal

(4/11/2008) Los Angeles County hoteliers were dealt a major setback when the state high court declined to hear hotel management appeals to a lower court ruling, which held the city's living wage ordinance is lawful. The Hotel Association for Los Angeles may yet appeal the case on different grounds.

Judge quits after another admonishment

(4/9/2008) James M. Brooks, a former Orange County Superior Court judge resigned from his seat after repeated public admonishment from the state's Commission on Judicial Performance. Brooks's final offense materialized during a 2005 employee-discrimination case, in which he over-ruled objections using hand-lettered signs and egged on an attorney who had taunted a plaintiff with the "Twilight Zone" theme. The Commission ruled that Brooks had failed to maintain order and decorum in his court.^[1]

Carson minister targets Latino judges to make way for Filipinos

(March 28, 2008) A Los Angeles County pastor initiated a write-in campaign designed to unseat Latino judges, and get Filipino ones elected in their place. The pastor said he targeted Latino judges since their names are "almost the same" as Filipino ones.

• Judicial candidates: Show us the money! (3/24/2008) A Los Angeles Times blog entry discusses the role of money in judicial campaigns.

Six more judges must face the ballot

(3/24/2008) One hundred thirty-eight unchallenged Los Angeles Superior Court judges were automatically re-elected in 2008; 16 judicial races were contested. See also: "Carson minister targets Latino judges to make way for Filipinos".

Studies

"Followed Rates" and Leading State Cases, 1940-2005

A study conducted by UC Davis confirms earlier data that showed the California Supreme Court is the most "followed" state supreme court. According to the study, "many of the California decisions have undergone a gestation period before garnering multiple follows by out-of-state cases. This phenomenon is most pronounced in the pre-1970 decisions." Some of the most followed cases include:

• Bernhard v. Bank of America
• Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court
• Dillon v. Legg
• Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
• Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.
• Seely v. White Motor Co.
• Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.
• Ray v. Alad Corp.
• Rowland v. Christian
• Lucas v. Hamm

(See report for more cases, especially of civil and criminal natures.)

References