waste of time as sanctionable conduct

In preparation to my second visit to London with our Bar's Litigation Section (called "A Legal Week In London," highly recommended), I was sharing my experiences from my first trip in 2015 with colleagues, and the discussion quickly centered on what differences I had then observed between how the courts operate there and here.  My observations are from the ground up: I appear regularly in law & motion and trial settings, and so can only compare from a view of a field practitioner. I make this comment because our visiting group in London included all kinds of members, from transactional attorneys, to appellate practitioners, to in-house counsel, and even judges and one appellate judge. So, what may have appeared noticeable in differences for them, might not strike me a worthy of note at all.

Demurrer By A Motion To Quash Is No More--Delta Motion Is Held Wrong Practice

For many years, there was a peculiar decision in Delta Imps. v. Mun. Ct. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, holding that the only way a complaint in unlawful detainer can be challenged on legal grounds was for a tenant to bring a motion to quash, not a demurrer. Many voiced their disagreement with this case during its 32-year legacy, and it seems that the last nail has arrived this week, the decision in Borsuk v. App. Div. of the Sup. Ct. (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 607.

Access to UK Caselaw And Beyond

If you need to look up a case decided in United Kingdom, try this free database. While there, look at the right column, entitled "World Law Resources," it has links to a collection of world jurisdictions.

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.

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.

Involuntary Un-Servitude

There is a recent move in the State of New York to increase the age limit for judges, to allow them to serve beyond the currently imposed 70 years. New York Times' article states that there are more than 30 states, plus D.C., that have an age limit on jurists. I found the article very interesting: it gives a reader a broad set of facts and, at least to me, feels like an exam set, inviting to "discuss this" and spot possible issues. I came up with these: