All posts in Courts

In re Sundquist, Last Add?

By | October 5, 2017 | Courts, Foreclosure Corner, Judges Corner | 3 Comments

This is an article today in the ABI blog today.

BofA Judge Doesn’t Want to Rip Up Scathing Ruling Against Bank

A bankruptcy judge who rebuked Bank of America Corp. over its “heartless” foreclosure on a California couple is not happy that the homeowners want him to erase his ruling, Bloomberg News reported yesterday. The couple reached a private settlement with the bank that calls for rescinding both the $45 million penalty that Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein imposed on the lender and the scathing ruling he issued in March. “So you want me to take the injunction and tear it up and throw it out,” Judge Klein asked during a hearing yesterday in Sacramento. He then explained that if the opinion is vacated, it will be expunged from the annals of law and can’t be cited as a precedent in other foreclosure abuse cases. As one of the couple’s lawyers explained to the judge that they were very grateful for what he’d done in the case and said that approving the settlement wouldn’t take away from the message in his ruling, the wife sat in the courtroom next to her husband and cried silently. Judge Klein sent attorneys for the couple and the bank to meet privately with another judge to discuss further revising the settlement. After they spent four hours behind closed doors, the judge announced there were some unresolved issues and that they’d try to wrap it up on Oct. 18.

Nice Program with Judge Alex Kozinski – October 19, 2017

By | September 25, 2017 | Appeals, Programs, Supreme Court | No comments
Judging the Judge: A Candid Conversation Between Judge Kozinski and Professors Ronald Collins and David Skover on Appellate Judging and the Politics of Law. Judge Kozinski will engage the authors in a spirited dialogue about partisan politics and the art of appellate judging, primarily at the Supreme Court level.
In their latest book, The Judge: 26 Machiavellian Lessons (Oxford University Press, 2017), Professors Collins and Skover raise a provocative question: What flows from the proposition that law is politics, or that Supreme Court decision-making in controversial cases is greatly influenced by partisan beliefs? That is, ever more people believe that judicial power is a form of political power. If so, what then? The answer: the maximization of judicial power, which is where Machiavelli comes in by way of the 26 power-maxims urged by the authors. It is against this conceptual backdrop that Judge Kozinski will engage the authors in a spirited dialogue about partisan politics and the art of appellate judging, primarily at the Supreme Court level.

Panelists:
Honorable Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
Professor Ronald Collins, University of Washington School of Law
Professor David Skover , Seattle University School of Law Read more…

Prof. Chemerinsky Annual Supreme Court Review October 5, 2017

By | September 6, 2017 | Programs, Supreme Court | No comments

ANNUAL SUPREME COURT REVIEW 
October 5, 2017 – 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. (Registration at 11:30 a.m.)
Location: The Biltmore Hotel (506 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA Parking $22.00 Valet)
United States Supreme Court Review
Featuring Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
University of California, Berkeley School of Law

Also Featuring Judge Barry Russell Federal Practice Award
The Honorable Barry Russell
Bankruptcy Judge, Central District of California

Very Nice Profile of Kathy Campbell, Clerk of the Court

By | August 15, 2017 | Community, Court Clerk Information, Courts | No comments

This was written by Corey Weber and published by the Insolvency Law Committee of the California State Bar

August 15, 2017 

The following is a profile of Kathleen J. (Kathy) Campbell, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the “bankruptcy court”).  Ms. Campbell met members of the Insolvency Law Committee in her Roybal Courthouse office and discussed her personal and professional background, the bankruptcy court’s operations and pending issues and observations.

Ms. Campbell was appointed to her current bankruptcy court position in 2010. The Central District of California is home to the largest bankruptcy court in the country, with divisions located in Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Ana, San Fernando Valley and Santa Barbara. Read more…

My Letter to Judge William H. Brown (Ret.) on the ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy

By | August 3, 2017 | Community, Courts | No comments

May 4, 2017

by email

ConsumerCommission@abiworld.org

Hon. William H. Brown (Ret.)

The ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy

 

Re:

Statement for Consideration

First Public Meeting, May 6, 2017

 

Dear Judge Brown,
Please submit this Statement to the ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy at the upcoming meeting on May 6, 2017.   The following are my comments to the ABI Commission “recommending improvements to the consumer bankruptcy system that can be implemented within its existing structure.”  These suggestions are mine and not those of any consumer bankruptcy organization.   I have practiced consumer bankruptcy, primarily from the debtor side, for most of my 37 years of practice of law.  My personal resume is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”  Read more…

Scotus Blog Stat Pack for Last Term

By | July 25, 2017 | Current Events, Supreme Court | No comments

I just love these.  Every possible statistic you can imagine about last term can be found here.

A few tidbits:

The Supreme Court issued opinions on only 62 cases the entire year.  They also issued 7 summary reversals.

They affirmed only 15 of total 71 cases or 21%.  As to the 9th Circuit, they affirmed 1 out of 8 cases.  Only the 1st Circuit (1-0) had more affirmations than reversals.    Even the Federal Circuit was reversed 6 out of 7 cases.  State courts were reversed in 14 out of 17 matters. Read more…

Prof. Dan Schechter’s Comments on Sundquist

By | July 21, 2017 | Cases, Courts, Foreclosure Corner | No comments

My post on In re Sundquist is here.  As part of his summary of cases distributed by the California Insolvency Law Committee, Prof. Dan Schechter had the following observations on In re Sundquist:

AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Given the court’s careful discussion of the evidence, I predict that the liability phase of this decision will withstand review. I also predict affirmance of the award of compensatory damages. I am not so sure, however, about the award of punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court has sharply curtailed the allowable ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003): “The wealth of a defendant cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional punitive damages award.” Read more…

New Local Rule 9011-1 – Get Your Clients to Sign the Documents!

By | July 6, 2017 | Courts | No comments

This rule goes into effect December 1, 2017.  Short summary:

Anything that is uploaded must have a signature – the holographic signature – in the person’s handwriting – on the form or pleading that is being signed and uploaded.

Exceptions?  Of course:

  • The “filer,” i.e., the person who is uploading the documents, i.e., the person who has the password to get on to ecf can upload a /s/ signature of his or her signature.
  • An “employee” of the filer can sign by /s/ signature – this means the proof of service essentially.

Any other comments?

  • Of course:  If there is no signature at all, the “filer” is treated as if he/she signed the document.
  • You must get the wet copy of the signature after it is signed.
  • You must keep the signatures for five years.

THE ACTUAL NEW RULE IS AFTER THE JUMP.   Read more…

Bringing an Action in Federal Court versus State Court.

By | June 16, 2017 | Community, Courts | No comments

On another list serve an attorney asked if there was any benefit to bringing an action in federal court versus state court (assuming there is diversity).  My friend Gary Wallace’s answer is great.

There are a great many differences between the two forums.  Here are some:

1.    Filing fees differ, especially post-complaint filing.  E.g., MSJ fee now $500 in state court.  Non-refundable $150 jury fee must be posted very early in the case (or waiver may result) (CCP 631).  Typical motion fee: $60.  It can add up.

2.    Time to respond to complaint: 21 days in federal court vs. 30 days in state court.

3.    Recording of proceedings:  Under federal law, each session of court and every proceeding designated by rule or order of the court or by one of the judges shall be recorded verbatim by shorthand, stenotype, stenomask, or electronic sound recording equipment. The method of recording may be elected by the district judge.  In contrast, budgetary constraints have greatly reduced the availability of court reporters in state court proceedings and there is little or no electronic recording. Read more…

Proposed Amended Local Rules

By | June 7, 2017 | Court Clerk Information, Courts | No comments

This is the announcement re the comment period.  As they say, if you don’t speak up now, don’t start complaining later.  A redline of the amendments can be accessed here.

RE: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULES AMENDMENTS

The United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, is proposing amendments to its Local Bankruptcy Rules, to become effective December 1, 2017, and is circulating the proposed amendments to the bar and public for comment.  A summary and redline of the proposed amendments is available on the Court’s website www.cacb.uscourts.gov under Rules, or by clicking here.

All comments on the proposed amendments will be carefully considered by the Court.  Please provide any comments on the proposed amendments as soon as possible but no later than July 7, 2017.

Comments concerning the proposed amendments must be submitted by email to bkcomments@cacb.uscourts.gov and include the name, email address, and phone number of the person submitting the comment.

KATHLEEN J. CAMPBELL

CLERK OF COURT

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →