e-Filing comes to San Francisco, hopefully without Jim Crow laws

Filing court papers online (termed as "e-filing") is a very useful feature. It was implemented already 10 years ago in the Federal courts, through the so called ECF/Pacer system. The efficiency of ECF/Pacer was recently put on the test, during the Federal Government's shutdown, allowing the courts to remain functional. In his address to the bar, Chief Judge Jaroslovsky commented that he would be writing a much different letter, should no eFiling system be in place at the time of the government's closure.

[UPDATE 11-5-14] 3 vendors are finally approved for the SF Court, in addition to the previously approved sole provider "File & Serve Xpress." Given the e-filing becomes mandatory in this court starting December 8, it's about time to get the providers on board.

[UPDATE 7-24-14] The voluntary e-filing became available on almost all kinds of cases, and I have personally successfully filed my first document through this system today.

[UPDATE 1-27-14] The "mandatory" e-filing is changed to "voluntary," while the second provider is getting up and running. New estimate for mandatory e-filing's cut-off date is June 30, 2014.

[UPDATE 1-6-14] San Francisco Court moves forward with one vendor and announces an additional vendor selected "through a competitive process." Competitor's name is not yet disclosed. Expansion of the mandatory e-filing kicks in on January 27, 2014.

Mandatory Health Exchange Notice - Where A California Employer Can Look For Help

It is a sad coincidence that the deadline of one event (federal budget) matched with the date when another event started rolling out (Health Care Reform). It is even sadder if the two events are related and the impasse on one may get the other stuck in its opening gates. It is for politicians to wrestle in search of a compromise; meanwhile, the law's one of the initial stages came into force, people are enrolling, and the California Employer is now mandated* to give employees a certain notice about health exchange. Where can one look for tips and hints, or, better, for suggestions on the notice's form? I have assembled here what I was able to find so far:

Federal Courts Will Remain Open During Shutdown

I just started wondering today, what would happen procedurally with the cases pending before the Federal courts during the Shutdown, when I received an email from our District's Bankruptcy Court, stating that "[t]he federal Judiciary will remain open for business for approximately the next 10 business days. On or around October 15, 2013, the Judiciary will reassess its situation and provide further guidance." This arrived at 9:30 A.M. and I couldn't stop myself from imagining scenarios, what would happen to the cases and whether it can be used to my clients' advantage. I felt half-worried half-excited approaching the Unknown.

Monthly Rent: When Is It Due And When Is It Late?

The most typical arrangement for the monthly rent payments is to be due on the 1st day of the month. This is probably how 99% of all landlord-tenant relationships operate. But is it required to be due on the first? Or, at least, is it so implied? And next question we might ask, once the due date is defined, when does the rent becomes late? This post will provide you with some hints on the subject.

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.

Moving-in the Subtenants: Sensitive Time Limits under the Rules 6.15A and 6.15B

The San Francisco Rent Board's Rules 6.15A and 6.15B look alike in many aspects, yet they provide for different time limits. These differences should not be overlooked.

In Leasing an "In-Law" Apartment Don't Be "In Pari Delicto" - Beware of an Exception for Legal Enforcement of Illegal Contracts

Leasing an "unwarranted" unit contains inherent risks: recent court cases often treat such lease agreements as illegal contracts, a finding leading to a set of scary, but possible discussions, ranging from such lease being simply unenforceable to a claim for restitution of back rents. A question then naturally arises, what can be done with an illegal contract, and are there any exceptions or conditions for its enforcement. The basic rule is that the contracting parties are both "in pari delicto" and neither can enforce the contract or recover therefrom. There is, however, an exception developed in California, which still lets one side to such allegedly illegal contract to recover from the other. An exception itself is not new, but its application to "illegal" leases developed more recently.

Update 03-07-14: San Francisco pilot program for legalizing in-law apartments got approved at the Planning Commission level.
Update 04-07-14: Board of Supervisors approves the pilot program
Update 02-21-16: Decision in Chen v Kraft invalidated a lease with an unlawful object, under CC § 1598.