1:1 - Two Recent Attacks on Ellis Act Notice Went Different Ways

Within one week the Appellate Division of the San Francisco Superior Court issued two decisions addressing requirements for an Ellis Act eviction under S.F. Admin. Code, Section 37.9A(f), taking an evidently different approach in reading the section in two cases and achieving opposite results.

Employer's Bond To Appeal Labor Commissioner's Decisions - Mandatory or Not?

Not everyone works a 4-hour workweek, but all those who work some finite periods of time may wonder, when does the time worked starts counting toward the overtime. In California, a straightforward response would be, after 8 hours per day or after 40 hours per week. But not everything is straightforward, and the overtime may come sooner just as well as it may come later in the workday or workweek. In other words, "it depends."

Legal Paper Size is ... Illegal. Foolscap!

Today, for the first time, my complaint was not accepted for filing because some of the pages were presented on legal size paper. The lease was printed on an old "long" form, requiring the legal size, and, while I used to have those exhibits successfully filed before, my luck ended today. The reason is not even a law, but the technology: I was told that the scanning company complains about the legal size, so all non-letter sized papers are now prohibited, in order not to upset the scanners. There you have it, the paper size called "legal" is not legal after all. I made a new copy of the long pages, reducing them to 8.5" x 11," and the filing went through, but, while I waited in line, I tried to look the subject up, and here are my findings.

Ghostwriting in Federal Courts in California - allowed, disfavored, or banned?

Attorney's ghostwriting, a practice for an attorney to draft documents for client's submission in court without revealing who actually wrote the documents, becomes more and more acceptable as a form of practice and is now generally allowed in California (Cal. R. of Ct., Rs 3.36, 3.37), subject to some reasonable ethical considerations. If you ask BAR for an advice, they would refer you to Los Angeles Bar Association's publications on the subject, such as this one from 1999 and a fresh 2012 update. Yet, the view on ghostwriting practice in the Federal courts of this same state remains unsettled.

$1.7 million default judgment is possible, even after a 473(b) motion.

Obtaining a default judgment is not easy. And if the judgment debtor later moves to set default and a judgment aside, especially if done on "mandatory" grounds of attorney's mistake [CCP 473(b)], courts often read it as equally a mandatory requirement to grant the requested relief. Often, but not always. This recent case presents a rare situation, when a simple act of submitting a declaration with an acknowledgement of fault did not help. The case is even more unique because of its facts: the judgment at stake was for a significant amount of $1.7 million, and the party asking to set it aside submitted not one, but several declarations regarding its attorney's fault.

100 California Appellate Decisions

In order to observe litigation dynamics on the state's appellate level, I took a sample scope of 100 appellate decisions (including ones from the Cal. Supreme Court, but not including Superior Court's Limited Jurisdiction's appeals). Unlike my earlier sample of 100 filed complaints at the trial-court level, which took only 3 days to fulfill, 100 appellate decisions were rendered over a span of approximately a month: my particular scope covered cases from March 26 to April 30, 2013. The results differ, as expected, since there are whole classes of cases regularly commenced in the trial court, but rarely appealed. Yet there are some similarities as well. Here are the particular results, per field:

100 Cases filed in the San Francisco Superior Court

I took a sample of 100 cases filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, to see its litigation dynamics. If another sample will be taken in a future, it will be interesting to compare, like I did with the scoop of 100 California appellate decisions, here. For now, here are my findings:

Not Having The Fear of God Before His Eyes: How Long Does It Take to Separate Religion From Indictment? [208+ years]

When I studied the legal maxim "Allegata et Probata" and came across a 1778 case Respublica v. Carlisle, 1 U.S. 35 (1778), it caught my eye that the allegations against the defendant were made with a help of religious reference to God and Devil: "not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil."

The allegation sounded very romantic, but looked suspicious for its place in a middle of an indictment of a serious criminal case. I thought to myself, this smells like an issue of mixing religion with the government, and decided to look closer. Here is what I found:

Allegata Et Probata

ALLEGATA ET PROBATA 

Meaning: The things alleged must agree with the things proved.

This rule applies to the proofs presented at trial, holding that such proofs have to be corresponding with what was alleged in the pleadings. Proving a fact not alleged is disallowed as a "variance."
The rule believed to be applied strictly in the Medieval period, but got relaxed in more recent times, so that the presented proofs need only to relate to the allegations. Variances to some immaterial degree become allowed.