a California-centric collection of comments and resources about complex litigation and class action practice
The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today. The only notable result (in my view) was:
The Supreme Court also issued a number of "Grant and Hold" orders in criminal cases.
According to the Daily Journal (subscription required), Los Angeles Superior Court will close one of its seven complex litigation courtrooms as of April 12, 2010. The closure is projected to save the Court $600,000. "Judge Peter Lichtman will be transferred from his current assignment at Central Civil West to the Stanley Mosk courthouse downtown, and employees working in his courtroom will be reassigned." The complex litigation program has, in the last year, declined to take class actions with increasing frequency. The closure of one of the complex litigation courtrooms is a significant loss for the people of Los Angeles County. The concentration of experience with the management of complex litigation matters and class actions simply cannot be duplicated in the general civil departments. But here we see yet another casualty of the grossly incompetent management of California's fiscal affairs.
A reader asks an important question: how will closing the department and moving the Judge and staff save $600,000? Good question. This reader points out that the cases won't go away, so the work will get distributed to other judges. Assuming that a net reduction of staff occurs, i.e., that the staff of this department fill vacancies elsewhere and the system continues with one less department, it is still not obvious that you arrive at a figure of $600,000 from the salaries and benefits cut. Anyhow, so much for our co-equal third branch of government, which gets to stand in the soup line and wait for the other two branches to figure a way out of the mess they've made of things.
No conference was held the week of January 4, 2010. If you are waiting for news about various Petitions for Review, the next couple of weeks are likely to have a press of activity.
The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on December 23, 2009. The only notable event I noticed was:
The California Supreme Court has announced on the California Courts website that its Los Angeles Clerk's Office will close at the start of the new year. The Notice states:
Notice
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010, the Los Angeles Clerk's Office of the Supreme Court of California will be closed. The Supreme Court will no longer accept filings at Court of Appeal locations. All petitions for review, writs, and legal briefs must be filed at:
Supreme Court of California
Office of the Clerk, First Floor
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
The Supreme Court will continue its practice of conducting oral argument in Los Angeles, typically in the months of April, June, October, and December.
The UCL Practitioner has additional helpful comments about alternative methods for filing briefs under the Rules of Court.
The Delaware Court of Chancery, in Georgetown, Delaware, is playing host to a wild one. Courtroom View Network is now providing live coverage of eBay v. Craigslist, otherwise known as eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Craig Newmark. California online mainstays eBay and Craiglist are involved in a bi-coastal battle over director voting rights and the alleged theft of confidential information. In a nutshell, eBay claims that Craiglist's directors unfairly diluted eBay's 28.4 percent minority shareholder stake in Craigslist and eliminated eBay's right to appoint a director. In another lawsuit filed in San Francisco, Craigslist claimed that eBay used its shareholder position to obtain confidential competitive information to gain an unfair commercial advantage in developing eBay's own competing online classified ad business, kijiji.com.
Courtroom View Network is providing free access to a sample clip of cross-examination of Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay. Other media outlets have more coverage of the opening day of trial. See, e.g., Shannon P. Duffy, Craigslist, eBay Face Off in Closely Watched Trial (December 8, 2009) www.law.com.
True, it's not a class action, but this is complex litigation at its best. Two cyber-goliaths trying to strangle each other on opposite sides of the country is too good to pass up. I just don't know who to root for.
Because of the Thanksgiving holiday, the Supreme Court announced opinion filings that will be published on Monday, November 30, 2009. The Court's Notice is available here.
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, previously mentioned on this blog here, will address the following issues:
(1) Does the attorney-client privilege (Evid. Code, § 954) protect factual statements that outside counsel conveys to corporate counsel in a legal opinion letter? (2) Does Evidence Code section 915 prohibit a trial court from conducting an in camera review of a legal opinion letter to determine whether the attorney-client privilege protects facts stated in the letter?
And Roby v. McKesson Corporation will address the following issues:
(1) In an action for employment discrimination and harassment by hostile work environment, does Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, require that the claim for harassment be established entirely by reference to a supervisor’s acts that have no connection with matters of business and personnel management, or may such management-related acts be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances allegedly creating a hostile work environment? (2) May an appellate court determine the maximum constitutionally permissible award of punitive damages when it has reduced the accompanying award of compensatory damages, or should the court remand for a new determination of punitive damages in light of the reduced award of compensatory damages?
In January 2008, class plaintiffs who purchased the hair regrowth formula Avacor prevailed at trial against Global Vision Products, Inc. The plaintiff alleged that Avacor was not an all natural or herbal formulation, but contained the drug Minoxidil (Rogaine). The initial verdict for the plaintiff class was approximately $37 million. However, Global Vision Products filed for bankruptcy protection.
Today, after a second phase of trial, a jury returned a verdict against individual defendants Robert DeBenedictis and Henry Edelson on an alter ego theory.
I will provide some additional information about this verdict after reviewing materials from the trial. Until then, Courtroom View Network, which recorded video of the entire trial, has provided access to a free clip from the trial.
The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on October 14, 2009. Notable results include:
In my subjective opinion, there were no other events of significance for purposes of this blog. However, the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Review and depublication request in Kobayashi v. Superior Court. For reasons that may become obvious to you, I am not going to comment at all on the underlying case. But if you are the curious sort, and enjoy carefully worded opinions, you can find the original opinion here, and the supplemental opinion here.
The Brinker docket shows that all parties have filed their answers to the many amicus briefs. In theory, this means that briefing is done. But don't doubt the ability of attorneys to come up with a (good) reason for some supplemental brief or other. See you next year for more on Brinker.
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.
