Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) is even closer to being fully briefed

Real Party in Interest, Adam Hohnbaum, has filed his consolidated answer to amicus curiae briefs.  The docket only shows the filing by Real Party in Interest, but, presumably, the Petitioner's consolidated answer has also been filed.  Depending upon where and how the brief is filed, it can take a day or two for the Court to indicate the filing on the docket.  This is very exciting news.  Now Brinker descends into the cone of silence until oral argument is set.  Seeing no basis for adjustment at this time, The Complex Litigator's Brinker projected Opinion Release Date remains at August 2010.

California Supreme Court (non)news

No conference was held for the week of October 5, 2009.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of September 28, 2009

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  The only notable event was:

• Petitions for Review were denied in Consumer Privacy Cases (Appellant-objectors to a class action settlement maintained that class members were not given adequate notice of the settlement, that the settlement was not fair, reasonable and adequate, and that the court erred in approving attorneys' fees to class counsel).

California Supreme Court activity for the week of September 21, 2009, and other Supreme Court news

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  Notable results include:

• A Petition for Review and a Request for Depublication were both denied in Doppes v. Bentley Motors (trial court abused discretion for failing to impose terminating sanctions).  This case is significant for a number of reasons, including its impact on aspects of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) claims.

No other case developments jumped out at me as significant this week.

In other Supreme Court news, the briefs for the October oral argument calendar are now available here.  Lots of "People v." cases in October, so it's not as exciting as it sounds (unless you are a District Attorney...or a criminal).

Brinker gets a little bit closer to the finish line

So Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) moves a bit closer to the light at the end of the tunnel.  After extensions were granted, the Petitioner and the Real Parties in Interest will both file their consolidated answers to amicus briefs on October 8, 2009.  But that's no small task; by my quick count, there are 22 amicus briefs filed in Brinker (view the docket).  That's twenty-two, give or take, in case you thought I double-clutched on the keyboard.  I'd say good cause exists for an extension to file consolidated answers.  Now, without having seen the amicus briefs, what do think the odds are that most of those amicus briefs (1) do nothing but repeat arguments that were in the 100+ page briefs by the parties, and/or (2) repeat other amicus briefs?  My bet is that about 90% of the amicus briefing from both sides could be run through a shredder with no loss of any argument.

Turning back to the timetable for resolution, imagine that you are a research attorney at the Supreme Court.  Imagine you have cases to review aside from Brinker.  Imagine you receive a couple of briefs in the 125-page range and around 22 amicus briefs.  Imagine they fall on you and crush your spine.  How long do you think it would take you to work up a draft opinion with a Justice?  Factor in the holidays, and I now think that my estimate of oral argument in March 2010 is a very optimistic.  I'm officially adjusting The Complex Litigator's Brinker Opinion Release Date from June 2010 to August 2010.  I should work up a graphic for this, like "Stormwatch Winter 2009" or "Firestorm!"  It will need shading and some sort of 3-D effect.

Update on 2009-09-15 07:18 by The Complex Litigator

And we have a logo.  Look for this striking image as a clue to breaking news about Brinker.  I know I promised something with a strange 3-D effect, but the American flag motif captures the spirit of this epic struggle.

September 9, 2009 actions by the California Supreme Court

With no conference last week, September 9, 2009 was an active day for the California Supreme Court.  Some notable actions include:

• A Petition for Review was granted in Loeffler v. Target Corporation [standing to sue for recovery of sales tax]
• After the lead case of Arias was resolved, Deleon v. Verizon Wireless was dismissed to the Second Appellate District, Division Three
• A Petition for Review was denied in Chau v. Starbucks Corporation [concerned judgment on discrete tip pooling issue]

Select legal briefs now available at no cost from the California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court is promoting a new feature on the California Courts website.  Legal briefs for cases on the September Oral Argument calendar can be found on this page.  The cases and briefs curently available include:

S149752: Roby v. Mckesson

Petition for review (PDF, 1,712 KB)
Answer brief (PDF, 2,998 KB)
Reply to answer petition for review (PDF, 891 KB)
Opening brief on the merits (PDF, 2,740 KB)
Answer brief on the merits (PDF, 3,733 KB)
Reply brief on the merits (PDF, 2,591 KB)

S163335: Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles

Petition for review (PDF, 2,595 KB)
Opening brief on the merits (PDF, 2,623 KB)
Answer brief on the merits (PDF, 1,201 KB)
Reply brief on the merits (PDF, 2,623 KB)

S161385: Schacter v. Citigroup, Inc. et al.

Petition for review (PDF, 1,293 KB)
Opening brief on the merits (PDF, 2,131 KB)
Answer brief on the merits (PDF, 1,904 KB)
Reply brief on the merits (PDF, 1,257 KB)

S166747: Johnson v. Greenelsh

Opening brief on the merits (PDF, 1,211 KB)
Answer brief on the merits (PDF, 2,152 KB)
Reply brief on the merits (PDF, 530 KB)

S158852: People v. Stevens (Lorenzo)

Petition for review (PDF, 2,081 KB)
Opening brief on the merits (PDF, 1,269 KB)
Answer brief on the merits (PDF, 2,461 KB)
Reply brief on the merits (PDF, 866 KB)

S163811: People v. Concha (Reyas) and Hernandez (Julio)

Petition for review (PDF, 2,844 KB)
Petition for review (PDF, 2,970 KB)
Opening brief on the merits (PDF, 1,445 KB)
Opening brief on the merits (PDF, 981 KB)
Answer brief on the merits (PDF, 1,196 KB)
Reply brief on the merits (PDF, 1,070 KB)
Reply brief on the merits (PDF, 762 KB)

This will prove to be an exceptional resource if briefs continue to be made available in this way.  An interesting implication of this free public access is whether it in any way resolves the recent copyright controversy about exclusive access to briefs by Westlaw and Lexis.

RECAP redux

I wrote yesterday about RECAP, an exciting project to collect documents from PACER and serve them up for free to the public, through a Firefox extension.  At about that same time, a small controversy over RECAP began brewing.  Eric Turkewitz, at New York Personal Injury Law Blog, reported on the controversy, saying, "Federal courts around the country are now sending out notices to litigants about the dangers of a computer program called RECAP, which if downloaded will automatically take documents that you purchase from the court's PACER system and place them into a free, publicly available database."  See Blog Post.  Carolyn Elefant, at Legal Blog Watch, covered this story as well, observing, "Though RECAP doesn't appear to violate any of PACER's terms and conditions of use, some federal courts are warning lawyers who have installed RECAP to exercise caution in use."  In her post, she reported on Paul Alan Levy's comments that the District Court warning "is not a genuine security warning, but an attempt to intimidate users from installing RECAP. After all, as more federal court documents become accessible at no cost, the federal court system will lose revenues."

But before I could report on this controversy, it appears to have subsided.  Consumer Law & Policy Blog is now reporting that Deputy Chief for IT Policy and Budget at the Administrative Office of the United States courts has no problem with the use of RECAP.

Los Angeles Times covers growing calls for greater accountability by federal judges accused of misconduct

Springboarding off a litany of criticisms directed at federal District Court Judge Manuel L. Real, the Los Angeles Times reported on comments by a judicial misconduct scholar that asked whether any misconduct by a federal Judge was sufficient to rise to the level of "willful misconduct."  Carol J. Williams, Critics want to bench Judge Manuel L. Real (August 16, 2009) www.latimes.com.  It's worth a read, if only to threaten that last little spark of faith in the system.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of August 17, 2009

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today. Notable results include:

• A transfer Order issued in Pfizer, Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano) following the decision in the lead case, In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009).  See also, additional comments in this post at The UCL Practitioner.
• A transfer Order issued in McAdams v. Monier following the decision in the lead case, In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009).
• A Petition for Review was denied in Olvera v. El Pollo Loco (arbitration agreement found unconscionable; no lucky for clucky).