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

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
Order Granting a Belated Fee Motion Affirmed on Appeal Due to Appellant's Inadequate Record

Most attorneys have missed a deadline at some point in their careers, or have awoken in the night worrying about it. The attorney in this recent case, Ojeda v. Azulay (D2d3 Feb. 10, 2021) No. B302440 (unpublished), missed a deadline to file a fee motion. But he owned up to the mistake, and the trial court granted his motion despite its untimeliness.

But, appellant urged, the trial court made no finding of good cause! Without a finding of good cause, and without a stipulation, there can be no extension under the rule!

Appellants often make technical arguments like this on appeal. But appellants often fail to meet their own technical requirements to establish them on appeal. Here, appellant did not appear at the hearing and did not otherwise argue against the moving party's showing of good faith mistake. Appellant also failed to provide a record of what happened at the hearing.

Affirmed.

Read More
Failure to Exercise Discretion Is an Abuse of Discretion, Federal Edition

I have written before about California state court cases holding that failing to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion. The same rule applies in federal courts, as the recent case […]

Read More
Spousal Support Order Reversed on Appeal for Lack of Explicit Findings

In this dissolution proceeding in Nevai v. Klemunes (In re Marriage of Nevai) (D3 Dec. 29, 2020) No. C086584, wife, who had quit her engineering career to raise the couple's child, asked […]

Read More
"Submit"​ on a Tentative, But Do Not "Stipulate"​ to a Tentative

When the trial court issues a tentative ruling, counsel often will "submit" on the tentative and give no further argument. On occasion I have noticed counsel saying they "stipulate" to […]

Read More

Tags

Podcast (46)
Videos (31)
Abuse of Discretion (15)
Waiver and Forfeiture (15)
Notices of Appeal (13)
Legal Writing (12)
Appealability and Appealable Orders (12)
Splits of Authority (10)
Stays on Appeal (9)
Dismissals (9)
Sanctions (8)
Motions for Reconsideration (8)
Oral Argument (8)
Appealability (8)
Attorney Fees (7)
New Trial Motions (7)
Federal Courts (7)
Arbitration (6)
Anti-SLAPP (6)
Civility (6)
Unpublished Opinions (6)
Statements of Decision (6)
Record on Appeal (6)
Respondent Arguments (6)
Briefing (6)
Ninth Circuit (6)
Timeliness (6)
Appellate Sanctions (5)
Disqualification (5)
Family Law (5)
CCP 998 Offers (5)
Posttrial Motions (5)
Dissents (5)
Judgment Enforcement (5)
Preliminary Injunctions (5)
Evidentiary Objections (5)
Substantial Evidence (5)
Implied Findings (5)
Trial Procedure (5)
Appellate Bonds (4)
Admission of Improper Evidence (4)
Standards of Review (4)
Discovery (4)
Jurisdiction (4)
California Supreme Court (4)
Default Judgments (4)
Experts (4)
Writ Petitions (4)
Stipulated Judgments (4)
Motions in Limine (4)
Frivolous Motions (3)
Juror Peremptory Challenges (3)
Exclusion of Evidence (3)
Notices of Entry (3)
Timely and Untimely Appeals (3)
Appellate Practice (3)
Depublished Opinions (3)
Summary Judgments and Summary Adjudications (3)
Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Judgments (3)
Summary Judgments (3)
Mootness (3)
Summary Judgment (3)
Collateral Orders (3)
Dismissed Appeals (3)
Ethical Duty of Candor (3)
Appealable Orders (3)
Trial Strategy (3)
Excessive Damages (3)
Standing (3)
Trust and Probate (3)
Stays (3)
Probate Appeals (3)
Judicial Admissions (2)
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (2)
Petitions for Review (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)
Expert Opinions (2)
Tentative Rulings (2)
Motions to Dismiss (2)
Landlord Tenant (2)
Judicial Bias (2)
Appeals Dismissed (2)
Invited Error (2)
Settlements (2)
Waiver (2)
Untimeliness (2)
Appeals Treated as Writs (2)
Pretrial Procedure (2)
Pretrial Issues (2)
Disentitlement Doctrine (2)
Class Actions (2)
Demurrers (2)
Motions to Vacate (2)
Mischief (2)
Civil Theft (1)
Treble Damages (1)
Premises Liability (1)
Frivolous Appeals (1)
Post-Appellate Issues (1)
Referral Fees (1)
Trial by Reference and Pro Tem Judges (1)
PAGA Attorney Fees (1)
Law and Motion (1)
Issue Selection on Appeal (1)
Remote Arguments (1)
Attorney Feese (1)
Employment Law (1)
Common Interest Doctrine (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)
Attorney Fees - CCP 1021.5 (1)
Moot Appeals (1)
Appellate Briefing (1)
Pleadings (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)
Mediation (1)
Split Decisions (1)
Inconsistent Verdicts (1)
Punitive Damages (1)
Dicta (1)
Petitionf ro Review (1)
Legal Practice (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)
Post Reversal Issues (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)
Amicus Briefs (1)
Incorrect Decisions (1)
Attorney Misconduct (1)
Comments (1)
Restraining Orders (1)
Summary Reversal (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