a California-centric collection of comments and resources about complex litigation and class action practice
I have it on good authority from an inside source that some wage and hour guru will express pithy commentary in the Daily Journal’s July 2, 2019 edition.
UPDATE: Turns out my sources were correct. Be sure to read the column Where Troester Stops Not Even Troester Knows.
As in full of pith. With a young attorney in my firm, Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, we wrote an opinion column for the Daily Journal, published on September 12, 2018 and entitled Unaccounted Time: Reading the tea leaves of Troester. Wait, something is wrong with that. If Lilit is a young attorney, then I am old. So let’s start again…
With a colleague at my firm, Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, we wrote an opinion column for the Daily Journal, published on September 12, 2018 and entitled Unaccounted Time: Reading the tea leaves of Troester. Much better.
I congratulate Lilit on her first foray into craven and shameless self-promotion.
The April 21, 2010 edition of the Daily Journal includes my article, entitled "Witnesses Cannot Hide," in the Perspective column. It explains that the right to discover putative class member identity in class actions is really the right to discover witness identity in general. Discovery of witnesses is a foundational element of civil discovery rights. The arguments about privacy notices are intended to distract from this core right. The article is posted below with permission of Daily Journal Corp. (2010).
If you have difficulty viewing the flash object, the direct link is here. I thank the editorial staff of the Daily Journal for providing the posting permission.
One day after running my Perspective column, entitled "Legislature Using Purse Strings to Bind Judiciary," the Daily Journal has published a story today that chronicles the massive cuts to the Los Angeles County Superior Court system. Rebecca U. Cho & Catherine Ho, Hundreds Of L.A. Court Workers to Be Laid Off Today (March 16, 2010) www.dailyjournal.com [subscription required].
329 employees are scheduled to receive pink slips today. In addition, it is reported that 12 courtrooms will close, but the specifics have not been announced. The Los Angeles Superior Court currently plan to lay off an additional 500 employees in September. Los Angeles court officials are reportedly "facing a $79 million budget deficit in the current fiscal year, which is expected to grow to $120 million next year." Judge Charles McCoy is reported to have asked the Judicial Council for permission to use court construction funds for court operations.
In an article by the Los Angeles Times, Presiding Judge McCoy's missing to communicate the court funding crisis was described:
Los Angeles County Presiding Judge Charles "Tim" McCoy's message is loud and clear: His court system, the largest trial court in the nation, is facing deep fiscal trouble in the years ahead due to drastic cuts in state government funding.
Victoria Kim, L.A. County's top judge faces steep opposition to fund diversion proposal (February 16, 2010). In that article, the uphill battle in front of Judge McCoy is spelled out. According to Ann O'Malley. O'Malley, who chairs the state's Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee, 53 presiding judges of the state's 58 trial courts have told her they oppose Judge McCoy's proposed use of the construction fund to cover operating expenses.
If it is even necessary to consider layoffs of hundreds of employees or utilizing a court construction fund backed by bonds, not budget appropriations, to support basic operations, something is seriously awry in California's budgeting process. Whether or not you agree with Judge McCoy's specific predictions and approach to the problem, there is no disputing that a problem of colossal magnitude now exists. Pretty soon we won't need to debate tort reform or amendments to California's class action procedures; nobody will be able to have a civil case heard by a judge before the parties and counsel are all dead of old age.
The Press Release from the Los Angeles Superior Court is now available at the Los Angeles Superior Court website.
Today's Daily Journal includes a Perspective column, entitled "Legislature Using Purse Strings to Bind Judiciary," authored by colleague Linh Hua and me. The column discusses in greater detail the unconstitutionality of underfunding the judicial branch. The article is posted below with permission of Daily Journal Corp. (2010).
If you have difficulty viewing the flash object, the direct link is here. I thank the editorial staff of the Daily Journal for quickly providing the posting permission.
Today's Daily Journal includes my article, entitled "When Courts Disagree," in the Perspective column. It discusses with some interesting data my perception of a rift between the California Supreme Court and the lower courts of California. The article is posted below with permission of Daily Journal Corp. (2009).
If you have difficulty viewing the flash object, the direct link is here. I thank the editorial staff of the Daily Journal for quickly providing the posting permission.
Trenton H. Norris, a defense lawyer and partner at Arnold & Porter LLP, responded to my column with a letter to the Editor. In my opinion, Mr. Norris misleadingly chose to cast my column as an attack on the hard-working judges throughout California. I would take no issue with Mr. Norris stating, for example, that my construction of Cohen and Tobacco II is incorrect. But Mr. Norris, whose practice is devoted to advising and defending companies in regards to California's unique toxics and labeling law, Proposition 65, and California's expansive consumer protection laws, did not do that. Instead, my column was used as an opportunity to construct inaccurate statements regarding my views about the many judges of this state. Nothing in my column stated a lack of appreciation for the hard work that Courts do, and my blog has frequently noted those opinions where Courts were called upon to determine exceedingly difficult issues, doing so above the call of duty.
I want to be clear about the purpose of my column: I take issue with Courts that view Supreme Court decisions as irrelevant, a disturbing conclusion for any lower Court to reach. My column also notes that, based upon numbers of cases and statistics, there is a low probability that a lower Court will see any particular case reviewed. This fact, alone, eliminates recourse in most cases where a party views an appellate court's decision as inconsistent with controlling Supreme Court authority. It is also my belief, expressed through my column, that views about the utility of California's consumer protection laws have become increasingly polarized. Thus, Mr. Norris' disagreement is unsurprising. What is surprising is the way in which it was expressed.
As an advocate, I'm more than entitled to express the opinion that various Court decisions are not consistent with controlling law. In my view, Cohen is one such opinion that cannot be faithfully reconciled with Tobacco II. But that is just my opinion. I am confident that the vast majority of judges understand that the nature of their work necessarily results in disagreement over outcomes in most instances. I am also confident that the vast majority of judges appreciate and support my right to disagree with their rulings.
The Complex Litigator reports on developments in related areas of class action and complex litigation. It is a resource for legal professionals to use as a tool for examining different viewpoints related to changing legal precedent. H. Scott Leviant is the editor-in-chief and primary author of The Complex Litigator.
