Cal Biz Lit

How are California Court Resources Allocated?

CalBizLit is not a litigation reform blawg, and takes no generalized position on whether there is too much or too little litigation.  My firm and I have represented corporate clients as plaintiffs in highly meritorious litigation, and defended irresponsible suits filed by both individuals and companies.  We take a jaundiced view of certain types of litigation as a class (Proposition 65 litigation immediately springs to mind, although I realize that this warning/toxics law is wildly popular with California voters, and CalBizLit does believe in democracy).  But for the most part, there are righteous suits and bogus suits, and generalizing about any particular type of litigation (or litigant) is not very productive.  It is also CalBizLit’s official position that solving disputes through the litigation process sure beats most of the alternatives.

Having said that, perhaps because of my civil law background, I’ve always assumed that the civil justice system used an awful lot of resources.  Thus, I was pretty startled to see the statistics in the most recent Judicial Council of California Report on California court filings and allocation of court resources.  According to the Judicial Council:

• Filings for tort, personal injury, property damage, wrongful death and other civil complaints in general civil matters (where the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000) comprised a mere 1.88% of all filings in the Superior Courts during the 2005 – 2006 fiscal year;

• Limited civil matters (under $25,000 at stake) and small claims matters ($5,000 or less) accounted for 8.03% of the filings;  and

• All civil matters combined were responsible for 18.2% of the state-wide judges’ work load.  Family and juvenile matters were responsible for 29.2% of the workload and criminal matters a thumping 49.3% of the workload.

Off Topic Post

I'm so looking forward to seeing Allan Toussaint at this weekend's San Francisco Blues Festival.  He's a national treasure, and if you haven't seen him, you should.  Here's some Mr. Toussaint on You Tube for your Friday afternoon.

No Damage Suit Against Auto Makers For Causing Global Warming

Back when I was in law school in the 1970's, there was a fella named Jerry Brown, got himself elected governor of California.  He was disparagingly referred to as “Governor Moonbeam.”  He eschewed the perks of office, living in a small, barely furnished apartment in downtown Sacramento. Instead of riding in a limo or town car, he rode in a used Pontiac Satellite   (it turned out he had identical used cars in different parts of the state).  A lot of business interests felt he wrecked the state’s courts during that era, and although I’m not prepared to agree, there were certainly a good many off-the wall appellate decisions during that era (my favorite:  Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 49 (Findlaw subscr. req'd), finding a legal duty on the part of the telephone company not to place a pay phone booth where a drunk driver might jump the curb and run into it).

Anyway, Jerry had a notoriously short attention span.  He ran for president three times times, chaired the California Democratic party, ran for the senate, ran kind of a zen-like think tank, operated a public radio show, then ran for and served two terms as Mayor of Oakland.  Most recently, he ran for and was elected Attorney General, an office he’s held since the first of this year.

As Attorney General, Jerry inherited a case (brought by his predecessor, Bill Lockyer) against the big six auto makers, contending that they were guilty of nuisance and owed the State of California bazillions in damages for causing global warming.  And if that weren’t enough of a reach, instead of filing it in San Francisco, Alameda or Los Angeles state courts, where there are some judges who might go for this sort of thing, Lockyer filed the case, and Jerry prosecuted it, in the Federal Northern District.  To try to create jurisdiction, they cooked up the theory that there was a federal tort cause of action for common law nuisance.  I haven’t yet checked to see who’s the lucky deputy AG who got saddled with that wonderful argument.

More after the jump.

How To Get Out Of A Contract: More Musings on Gentry

Last week I blogged about the first half of the Cal Supremes’ decision in Gentry v. Circuit City (2007) ___Cal.4th___, S141502.  And the first half –- casting considerable doubt on “class action waivers” in binding arbitration agreements, at least as to overtime claims – was noteworthy and got the most notice in the blawgosphere.  But I think the second half is potentially much more far-reaching.  It may open up the potential for unconscionability arguments in all kinds of contracts, and strike a big blow against all kinds of “contracts of adhesion.”

More after the jump.

Arbitration and Class Action Waivers

Late last month, the California Supreme Court decided Gentry v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County addressing the question whether the courts will enforce the provisions of an arbitration agreement waiving the right to bring a class action arbitration when overtime is sought.  This has had lots of coverage in the blawgs, as you can see here, here and here, and very little in the general media (although the LA Times did cover it pretty well here).  The Court held that there is a balancing process, but in most instances, it looks as though the class action wavier will be invalid.  But what's interesting is the court's view of both overtime suits and class actions, both of which played key roles in the decision.

More after the jump.