Chapter 1: Introduction
A. COURSE PERSPECTIVE
p. 2, first full sentence at top of page: For the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the number of civil
filings in California’s superior courts was approximately 1,575,000. This figure includes
unlimited and limited civil cases, small claims cases, and family law and probate filings. See
2012 Court Statistics Report, Statewide Caseload Trends, 2001-2002 through 2010-2011, pp.
xiv-xv (Judicial Council of California).
B. SOURCES OF PROCEDURAL LAW
1. Primary Authorities
Case Law
p. 8, end of first full paragraph, following Moret cite: See also K.G. v. Merideth, 204
Cal.App.4th 164, 172 n.9, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 645, 653 n.9 (2012) (“We may * * * appropriately
cite [an unpublished California Court of Appeal opinion] to explain the factual background of the
case and not as legal authority. * * * [T]his is an appropriate use of unpublished opinions that
does not violate rule 8.1115.”)
p. 13, Note 2, immediately following cite to Grodin article on Depublication: The California
Supreme Court may direct that an opinion that has been ordered for publication not be published.
The number of opinions ordered depublished by the Court has increased over the last few years
from its all-time low of four opinions in fiscal year 2010 to ten opinions in FY 2011, 14 opinions
in FY 2012, and approximately 15 opinions in FY 2013. (By contrast, the Court’s depublication
orders typically exceeded 100 per year during the late 1980s and early 1990s.)
Add new second paragraph: A California Supreme Court order of depublication does not
necessarily signal disapproval. However, “[b]ecause depublication renders the [Court of Appeal]
opinion non-citeable and removes its precedential value, it nullifies the opinion and renders it
nonexistent.” Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.4th 96, 159
Cal.Rptr.3d 580 (2013).
p. 13, Note 3, new second paragraph: The Teacher’s Manual to the fourth edition of the
casebook cites Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, regarding published and
subsequently depublished Court of Appeal decisions. The California Supreme Court granted
review and subsequently transferred the case to the Court of Appeal, whose opinion may be
found at 209 Cal.App.4th 1077, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 620 (2012). The California Supreme Court then
denied review and ordered the Court of Appeal opinion decertified on Jan. 16, 2013. See also
People v. E*Poly Star, Inc., 205 Cal.App.4th 1316, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 243 (2012), petition for
review granted and opinion superseded, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 283 P.3d 1159, appeal dismissed
and remanded to Court of Appeal, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 72, 296 P.3d 974 (2013) (reliance on Court
of Appeal decision after Supreme Court has granted review violates CRC 8.1115).
p. 13, Note 4, immediately following Landmark Screens cite: See also Haligowski v. Superior
Court, 200 Cal.App.4th 983, 990 n.4, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 214, 219 n.4 (2011) (“Unpublished federal
Page 1 of 3
opinions are ‘citable notwithstanding California Rules of Court, rule [8.1115] which only bars
citation of unpublished California opinions.’”).
Rules of Court
p. 21, Note 1, new second paragraph: In Sino Century Development Limited v. Farley, 211
Cal.App.4th 688, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 866 (2012), the Court of Appeal reversed an award of
attorney’s fees made under CRC 2.30 as a sanction for defendants’ violation of a statewide rule
of court requiring notice of an automatic stay pursuant to a bankruptcy filing. The court
interpreted Rule 2.30 as limiting attorney’s fees awards to those fees incurred only in the
proceedings seeking monetary sanctions for the rule of court violation. Attorney’s fees are not
available as part of a monetary sanction authorized by Rule 2.30(b) for violation of court rules.
p. 21, Note 1, new third paragraph: Rule 2.30 applies only to violations of the statewide rules
of court relating to general civil cases, unlawful detainer cases, probate proceedings, civil
proceedings in the appellate division of the superior court, and small claims actions. Rule 2.30
does not apply in family law cases; those matters are exempted from the definition of a general
civil case. CRC 1.6(4). It also does not authorize sanctions for violations of California Rules of
Professional Conduct; those rules come from the State Bar of California, not of the California
Rules of Court. Marriage of Bianco, 221 Cal.App.4th 826, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 785 (2013).
p. 22, new Note 3: Refer to the Edible Widgets Hypothetical, Chapter 1, Section E. Suppose
Dan is representing himself in the lawsuit filed against him by Pam and Paul. Dan has attempted
to file a motion for appointment of counsel, based on his indigent status. The court clerk’s office
sent Dan a letter rejecting his motion for filing, stating that the court does not appoint counsel in
civil matters and insisting that Dan provide precedents for his position before the clerk would file
the motion papers. If Dan’s motion papers comply with the California Rules of Court, may the
clerk nevertheless reject Dan’s papers for filing? See Voit v. Superior Court, 201 Cal.App.4th
1285, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 381 (2011) (“No statute, rule of court, or case law gives the court clerk’s
office the authority to demand that a petitioner cite or quote precedent before his motion will be
filed. * * * If a document is presented to the clerk’s office in a form that complies with the rules
of court, the clerk’s office has a ministerial duty to file it.”)
Local Rules
p. 23, end of first full paragraph: Other statewide rules of court expressly preempt local rules.
See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Chen, 197 Cal.App.4th 881, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 604 (2011) (local rule
governing attorney’s fees awarded in petition to approve minor’s compromise preempted by
CRC 7.955(d)).
p. 24, top of page, following Mito cite: Ghaffarpour v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 1463,
136 Cal.Rptr.3d 544 (2012) (local rule governing timing of filing of motion to disqualify judge
following remittitur was void because it conflicted with less restrictive statutory time limits);
Bracher v. Superior Court, 205 Cal.App.4th 1445, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 316 (2012) (local rule and
policy requiring misdemeanor defendants to appear personally at readiness and settlement
conference conflicts with statutory scheme permitting appearance through counsel); and People
v. Johnson, 208 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1099 n.10, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 148, 153 n.10 (2012) (CRC “have
the force of statute to the extent that they are not inconsistent with legislative enactments and
Page 2 of 3
constitutional provisions”). See also Marriage of Woolsey, 220 Cal.App.4th 881, 163
Cal.Rptr.3d 551 (2013) (local rule imposing requirements on marital settlement agreements that
went beyond state statutes was invalid).
Local Policies and Practices
p. 24, end of first full paragraph: Local policies and practices exist on the appellate level as
well. See, e.g., Internal Operating Practices and Procedures of the Court of Appeal First
Appellate District (eff. 9/22/11) (containing general information about the court and samples of
forms).
2. Secondary Authorities
Opinions of the California Attorney General
p. 26, replacing Fagan cite: City of Woodlake v. Tulare County Grand Jury, 197 Cal.App.4th
1293 n.4, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 246 n.4 (2011).
D. THE CHOICE BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURT
p. 28, end of paragraph, following Claflin cite: See also Mims v. Arrow Financial Services,
LLC, ___U.S.___, 132 S.Ct. 740, 181 L.Ed.2d 881 (2012) (concurrent federal and state court
jurisdiction for actions arising under federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act). Tearlach
Resources Limited v. Western States International, Inc., 219 Cal.App.4th 773, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d
110 (2013) (no evidence of congressional intent to grant exclusive federal jurisdiction over
disputes involving assignment of interest in oil and gas leases).
p. 29, end of first paragraph: See also Gunn v. Minton, ___U.S.___, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 185
L.Ed.2d 72 (2013) (no exclusive federal jurisdiction for malpractice action arising out of state
court’s previous adverse ruling on validity of patent); Caldera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regents
of University of California, 205 Cal.App.4th 338, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 543 (2012) (dispute involving
primarily state law contractual causes of action did not confer federal jurisdiction because it did
not involve essential or substantial issues of patent law). See also Benitez v. Williams, 219
Cal.App.4th 270, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 26 (2013) (exclusive federal jurisdiction over copyright
infringement causes of action).
Page 3 of 3