Legal News and Appellate Tips

Each week, TVA appellate attorney Tim Kowal reviews several recent decisions out of the appellate courts in California, and elsewhere, and reports about the ones that might help you get an edge in your cases and appeals.

If you would like to receive weekly updates of the articles posted here, click here to sign up for the newsletter.

Tag: Abuse of Discretion

Trial Court's Exclusion of Evidence Was Error Requiring Reversal of Order Denying Restraining Order

Judges have a lot of leeway to exclude evidence at trial. But in *Brubaker v. Andy Strum* (D2d7 Dec. 10, 2021) 2021 WL 5856791 (no. B307887) (nonpub. opn.), the exclusion was an abuse of discretion. The trial judge excluded the evidence supporting the appellant's motion for a renewed domestic violence restraining order because he thought the evidence of harassment was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. But the judge misunderstood the doctrine of issue preclusion. That was a legal error. As a legal error was the basis of the exclusion, the exclusion order had to be reversed.

**The upshot**: Evidentiary rulings normally are difficult to challenge on appeal, being subject to the deferential abuse of discretion standard. But when an evidentiary ruling is based on an error of law, you may be entitled to something more like de novo review. That is what happened in this case.

Read More
You Have No Right to a Ruling on a New Trial Motion

The right to move for a new trial is an important right, developed from the common law, enshrined in statute, and respected by our courts. The recent case of Nickelson v. Nickelson (D2d2 Nov. 19, 2021) 2021 WL 5407839 (no. B302585) (nonpub. opn.) also respects the important right to move for new trial. You absolutely have the right to move for new trial. No question. But Nickelson says you don't have a right to a ruling on the motion.

In this domestic violence case, the appellant-brother's claim was dismissed after trial. He moved for new trial arguing his evidence should have been let in, including video and photographic evidence and medical reports.

Here is what the trial court did about the appellant's new trial motion: the judge told the appellant to just file an appeal instead. And then the judge took the new trial motion off calendar.

And the Court of Appeal held this was fine.

(In the rest of the post, I explain why I disagree.)

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://tvalaw.com/california-appellate-newsletter.

Read More
Limited Jurisdiction Appeals, Eviction Tsunamis and HateWriting, our Interview with Frances Campbell

Frances Campbell of Campbell & Farahani, LLP joins Jeff Lewis and me for a discussion about housing law, eviction defense, appeals, and practicing in limited jurisdiction courts. Fran explains some of the common pitfalls in limited civil appeals, and discusses whether the Appellate Division seems sometimes to be shielded from meaningful review. (These courts handle eviction appeals, and because they are usually unpublished the bar still has no clear answer on who has standing to bring UD actions.)

Fran also shares her views on the coming eviction tsunami (spoiler, she says it's a myth) , the term "HateWrite" (verb: the act of drafting, in a single pass, in a state of agitated elan, an entire appellate brief, the editing of which requires only the removal of vituperative adverbs), and the font Cochin for brief writing.

Read More
$1 Billion LA Homelessness Injunction Reversed by 9th Circuit: Judge's Independent Factual Investigation Was Improper

Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California made national news when he ordered Los Angeles to put up $1 billion to address its homelessness crisis. But that order was based on claims the plaintiffs did not allege, relief the plaintiffs did not request, and evidence the plaintiffs did not adduce. While trial courts are given wide discretion in issuing preliminary injunctions, the Ninth Circuit in LA Alliance for Human Rights v. County of Los Angeles, ___ F.4th ___ (2021) 2021 WL 431791, thought this was coloring rather far outside the lines.

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://lnkd.in/g23bc4Y.

Read More
Renewed Restraining Order Affirmed on Appeal; Appellant Forfeited Challenge by Failing to Describe All Evidence Supporting the Order

In appeals from mixed discretionary and factual findings, it can be tempting to fault the trial court for failing to consider all the great evidence in the appellant's favor. But be careful not to ignore the "heavy burden" required to get review on the factual questions. Failing to comprehensively evaluate the evidence against the appellant resulted in a forfeiture of the issues on the appeal in Ashby v. Ashby (D4d3 Aug. 5, 2021) 2021 WL 3413092 no. G058474 (nonpub. opn.).

Reviewing a renewal of a DVRO, the court analyzed the Ritchie factors and found that findings supporting the original DVRO, a key point of the analysis, were not properly captured in the appellant's brief. So the issue was forfeited. Order affirmed.

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://lnkd.in/g23bc4Y.

Read More
Exclusion of Expert Data Affirmed on Appeal; But Exlusion of Expert Opinion Based on That Data Reversed

When it comes to expert evidence, the trial court may properly exclude evidence that was not actually prepared by the expert. The normal rules of evidence authentication still apply, even where experts are concerned. But when an expert wants to offer opinions based on the same unauthenticated and unadmitted evidence, excluding that opinion may be an abuse of discretion.

That is the holding of the published opinion in Zuniga v. Alexandria Care Center, LLC (D2d7 Aug. 13, 2021) 2021 WL 3579021 no. B297023. In an employee's PAGA claim, the employee-plaintiff retained two experts. One expert was retained to convert the employer's time records into an Excel spreadsheet. The second expert was retained to opine on the spreadsheet. It was an abuse of discretion to exclude the second expert's opinion merely because it was based on the first expert's excluded report.

And trial counsel may have acted shrewdly in resting her case after the devastating ruling without offering other evidence, as it made it very easy to establish the ruling prejudiced her case.

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://lnkd.in/g23bc4Y.

Read More
Failure to Exercise Discretion in Issuing a Stay of Enforcement of Judgment Is an Abuse of Discretion

In a recent case involving more than one case number, the defendant got an early victory in one case, and got an award of attorney fees. The trial court, however, did not like the idea of rewarding one party partway through a complex litigation, so it imposed a sua sponte stay of enforcement of that fee award.

That stay was reversed on appeal in Specialty Baking, Inc. v. Kohanbash (LASC App. Div. May 24, 2021) no. BV033347 (nonpub. opn.). While such a stay may be permissible, the court in making the discretionary ruling failed to consider the factors required under the operative statute. Failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion.

Whenever the topic of stays and bonds come up, that is a good time to consult an appellate attorney.

Get a weekly digest of these articles delivered to your inbox by subscribing here: https://lnkd.in/g23bc4Y.

Read More
Family Judge's Refusal to Consider a Pre-Dissolution Mental Evaluation Is an Abuse of Discretion

Family court appeals are difficult because they delay an already bitter experience. The Court of Appeal is aware of this when it admonishes the family court that a recent appeal "might never have arisen had the trial court exercised its authority to make a capacity determination."

Despite repeated objections by the wife that the husband's recent life-threatening injuries had caused a behavioral change and mental disturbance affecting his capacity, the family judge in In re Marriage of Hermes (D4d3 Jun. 16, 2021) no. G058623 (nonpub. opn.) had credited the husband's attorney's improvident view that the family court does not need to determine capacity issues.

In fact, yes, the family court does need to adjudicate claims of mental capacity.

In the trial court, there is much to be said for the Al Davis rule: "Just win, baby." But leading the trial court to misunderstand its legal obligations should be regarded an exception to that rule.

Read More
Wesson Oil Class Settlement Reversed: 9th Cir. Holds Trial Court Abused Discretion in Assuming Post-Cert. Settlement Was Not Collusive

Class actions only very loosely resemble the practice of law as most attorneys know it. Yes, they involve plaintiffs suing defendants in court before a judge. But most of the class members don't even know they're in the case, and wouldn't know their attorney if he showed up at their doorstep delivering a settlement check (in this case, a check for about $0.15). Things are much different for their attorneys, however, as was the case in Briseño v. Henderson, --- F.3d ---- (9th Cir. June 1, 2021), who proposed to pocket millions from what the Ninth Circuit held to be a collusive settlement agreement in a false advertising case over cooking oil.

The new clarification Briseño provides is that the rule requiring close scrutiny of class settlements applies both pre-class certification and post-class certification.

An ancillary lesson from Briseño is, experts will say anything.

And the much less important but more entertaining lesson from Briseño is: Judge Lee really loves puns (such as: the attorneys suing Wesson here were "hoping to strike oil"); and pop-culture references to Star Wars and the Hamilton musical.

Read More
Denial of Domestic Violence Restraining Order Reversed; Improper to Refuse Evidence of Recent Abuse, Appeals Court Holds

Family court orders, such as domestic violence restraining orders, are often difficult to reverse because they are subject to a very deferential standard on appeal. A Court of Appeal will only reverse if it concludes the family court abused its discretion. But the abuse-of-discretion standard has limits. And when the family court misapplies the legal and evidentiary rules entirely, its rulings are entitled to no discretion at all.

That is what happened in Marriage of F.M. and M.M. (D1d1 May 28, 2021) no. A160669 (non-pub.). The trial court ruled that although the parties "definitely need to stay away from each other," the court concluded "[t]hat doesn't mean that there needs to be domestic violence restraining orders." Instead, the court ordered mother to move out of the house (even though no one asked for that).

The court also categorically refused to consider mother's testimony that father had threatened violence after the TRO was issued.

But that is not how any of this works, the First District Court of Appeal held.

Reversed and remanded.

Read More
Selecting Issues for Appeal? Look for Misapplication of the Legal Standard, Like in This Attorney Fee Case

One of the most effective pieces in winning an appeal is issue selection. Most attorneys know, for example, that "de novo" issues are best on appeal: the Court of Appeal will not pay any deference to a trial court on issues of law.
And most attorneys also know that "abuse of discretion" issues are lousy on appeal. That is because the Court of Appeal will pay great deference to a trial judge's discretionary decisions.
But there is a significant minority of discretionary cases where the trial court so botches its analysis, or misunderstands the law, that the Court of Appeal will pay its orders no deference at all. Instead, on appeal the court will conclude that the trial court failed to exercise discretion. And a failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion.
That is what happened in Southern Cal. School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate Univ. (D2d1 May 3, 2021) no. B302452 (non-pub.). The trial judge thought she did not have authority to apply a "negative multiplier" to reduce block-billed fees. That was incorrect. So back down the case goes.

Read More
9th Cir. Reverses $1.8B Summary Judgment Against Discovery Abuser, Suggests District Court Impose Terminating Sanctions Instead

The Good News for Defendant: The Ninth Circuit reversed plaintiff's summary judgment on its breathtaking $1.8 billion Lanham Act claim.
The Bad News: In light of all defendant's discovery abuses, the Ninth Circuit wonders aloud whether the district court, when reconsidering the matter, might simply enter a default judgment against it on remand.

There is no duck blind in civil discovery: you don't get to take shots at the other side's evidence if they don't get to take shots at yours.

The concurrence concludes with this chilling suggestion: "I share the majority's opinion that the district court could consider entering discovery sanctions. See supra note 5. In my view, appropriate sanctions could even include a default judgment against Defendants-Appellants, if the district court deems it justified."

Read More

Tags

Podcast (66)
Videos (55)
Abuse of Discretion (19)
Appealability and Appealable Orders (17)
Waiver and Forfeiture (16)
Notices of Appeal (15)
Splits of Authority (13)
Legal Writing (13)
Statements of Decision (12)
Stays on Appeal (11)
Dismissals (11)
New Trial Motions (10)
Arbitration (9)
Judgment Enforcement (9)
Oral Argument (9)
Unpublished Opinions (9)
Briefing (9)
Attorney Fees (8)
Sanctions (8)
Anti-SLAPP (8)
Motions for Reconsideration (8)
Evidentiary Objections (8)
Record on Appeal (8)
Appealability (8)
Timeliness (8)
Dissents (7)
Preliminary Injunctions (7)
Summary Judgments and Summary Adjudications (7)
Implied Findings (7)
Respondent Arguments (7)
Ninth Circuit (7)
Federal Courts (7)
Trial Strategy (7)
Appellate Sanctions (6)
Family Law (6)
Civility (6)
CCP 998 Offers (6)
Standards of Review (6)
Discovery (6)
Collateral Orders (6)
Writ Petitions (6)
Stipulated Judgments (6)
Disqualification (5)
Appellate Bonds (5)
Exclusion of Evidence (5)
Admission of Improper Evidence (5)
Posttrial Motions (5)
Appellate Practice (5)
California Supreme Court (5)
Substantial Evidence (5)
Mootness (5)
Experts (5)
Trial Procedure (5)
Notices of Entry (4)
Timely and Untimely Appeals (4)
Jurisdiction (4)
Default Judgments (4)
Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Judgments (4)
Dismissed Appeals (4)
Ethical Duty of Candor (4)
Excessive Damages (4)
Standing (4)
Motions in Limine (4)
Disentitlement Doctrine (4)
Finding Compelled as a Matter of Law (Failure of Proof) Standard of Review (4)
Frivolous Motions (3)
Juror Peremptory Challenges (3)
Petitions for Review (3)
Depublished Opinions (3)
Summary Judgments (3)
Expert Opinions (3)
Summary Judgment (3)
Appealable Orders (3)
Trust and Probate (3)
Settlements (3)
Appeals Treated as Writs (3)
Stays (3)
Demurrers (3)
Probate Appeals (3)
Judicial Admissions (2)
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (2)
Trial by Reference and Pro Tem Judges (2)
Law and Motion (2)
Contempt (2)
Attorney Client Privilege (2)
Forfeiture and Waiver (2)
PAGA Actions (2)
Litigation Tips (2)
Recovery of Costs (2)
Standards of Evidence (2)
Jury Waivers (2)
Personal Jurisdiction (2)
Tentative Rulings (2)
Motions to Dismiss (2)
Landlord Tenant (2)
Judicial Bias (2)
Appeals Dismissed (2)
Invited Error (2)
Mediation (2)
Waiver (2)
Untimeliness (2)
Legal Practice (2)
Pretrial Procedure (2)
Post Reversal Issues (2)
Pretrial Issues (2)
Class Actions (2)
Motions to Vacate (2)
Mischief (2)
Amicus Briefs (2)
Comments (2)
Civil Theft (1)
Treble Damages (1)
Frivolous Appeals (1)
Post-Appellate Issues (1)
Referral Fees (1)
PAGA Attorney Fees (1)
Issue Selection on Appeal (1)
Remote Arguments (1)
Attorney Feese (1)
Employment Law (1)
Common Interest Doctrine (1)
Premises Liability (1)
Juror Misconduct (1)
Product Liability (1)
Clear and Convincing (1)
ADA and Unruh Accessibility Actions (1)
Clerks Service of File Stamped Judgment (1)
Designating the Record (1)
Trade Restraints (1)
Civil Code 3334 (1)
Benefits Obtained Trespass Damages (1)
Trespass (1)
Property Rights (1)
Inherent Authority (1)
Support Awards (1)
Forfeiture (1)
PostJudgment Litigation (1)
Unsupported Arguments (1)
Petitions for Rehearing (1)
Judicial Notice (1)
Post Reversal (1)
Moot Appeals (1)
Appellate Briefing (1)
Pleadings (1)
Attorney Fees - CCP 1021.5 (1)
Judicial Estoppel (1)
Harmless Error (1)
Prejudicial Error (1)
Record Designation (1)
Typeface (1)
Typography (1)
Jury Instructions (1)
Precedent (1)
New Arguments (1)
Third Parties and Nonparties (1)
Ninth CircuitAbuse of Discretion (1)
Out-of-State Litigant (1)
Family Court (1)
Split Decisions (1)
Inconsistent Verdicts (1)
Punitive Damages (1)
Dicta (1)
Petitionf ro Review (1)
Finality and Final Orders (1)
DismissalsAppealability and Appealable Orders (1)
Motions to Quash (1)
Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (1)
Federal Appeals (1)
Consenting to Judgments (1)
Alter Ego (1)
Law of the Case (1)
Record (1)
Bankruptcy (1)
Local Rules (1)
Evidentiary Presumptions (1)
New Trial (1)
Exhaustion of Remedies (1)
Waived and Forfeiture (1)
Per Se Errors (1)
Review as Writ Petition (1)
Incorrect Decisions (1)
Attorney Misconduct (1)
Restraining Orders (1)
Summary Reversal (1)
Judicial Misconduct (1)
Stipulated Reversals (1)
Trial Irregularities and Structural Errors (1)
Constitutional Litigation (1)
Medical Rights (1)
Retainer Agreements (0)
Professional Ethics (0)
Appellate (0)
Notice of Appeal (0)
Landlore Tenant (0)
Split of Authority (0)
No categories Legal Writing (0)
crossmenuchevron-down