Courts | Babachanian | Legal Counsel

“Good Morning, Teacher!” Like School Never Ended…

Sark — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:34:23 +0000

I muse at how lawyers waiting for morning calendar call sound like schoolchildren with a unified response to the judge’s greeting: “Good morning, your honor.” All that’s missing is the apple on the bench.

The post “Good Morning, Teacher!” Like School Never Ended… appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.

Bailiff Clueless About Courtroom Security…

Sark — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:47:45 +0000

I’m waiting for my case to be called at Glendale Superior Court Dept. 2 yesterday and notice this big black plastic case on roller wheels stenciled “Emergency Floor Warden” in big red letters right next to the bailiff’s desk. I’ve been coming to this court for over 18 years and never saw it before so, my curiosity piqued, I asked the sheriff’s deputy – you know, the dude assigned to secure the courtroom – what was in the box. Hard to believe, but he said he had no idea and frankly didn’t seem at all interested. In fact, this particular deputy seems to have a very limited interest – being as generally mean, rude and unpleasant as possible. Your tax dollars at work.

The post Bailiff Clueless About Courtroom Security… appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.

Even Judge Troubled About Imposing “Mandatory Minimum” Life Sentences, But Hands Tied…

Sark — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:51:32 +0000

Even the judge agreed the “mandatory minimum” life sentence without possibility of parol was too much, but his hands were tied by the law. What a heartbreaking story by New York Times reporter John Tierney. There are sooo many reasons MMs are wrong including the cost of incarceration but mostly because, in many, many cases, they are simply unjust. Fellow Americans, KNOW what’s going on around you and SPREAD THE WORD!

The post Even Judge Troubled About Imposing “Mandatory Minimum” Life Sentences, But Hands Tied… appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.

Important Changes Coming to Civil Case Management at the LA Superior Courts…

Sark — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:31:24 +0000

Important Information about the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County pertaining to management of CIVIL cases:

Last week the L.A. Superior Court began disseminating information about major changes that will take place as a result of the severe budget crisis facing the Court.

Despite the passage of Proposition 30 and the election of Democrat “Super Majorities” in both Legislative Houses, the LASC alone must permanently cut its budget by $55 million to $86 million in expenditures before June 30, 2013. This is in addition to the more than $100 million the LASC cut in the last two years.

Following is a preliminary summary of the changes that have been announced that specifically affect the Civil Courts.

There are still questions to be answered, but following is what has been announced to date.

(Note: All of the following will occur between December 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013).

– Ten Courthouses will be closed:

– Huntington Park, Whittier, Pomona North, Malibu, West L.A., Beverly Hills, San Pedro, Beacon Street, Catalina, and Kenyon Juvenile Justice Center.

– All PI cases (including wrongful death and medical malpractice) will be filed downtown in Mosk and will be assigned to one of two Master Calendar (MC) Courtrooms.

– Each MC Judge is expected to have as many as 8,000 cases under his or her jurisdiction at any one time.

– There will be no MC Courtrooms in the districts. A PI case will be in the district only if the MC Court determines (at the request of a party) it should be transferred to an IC Court in the district if the case will be too “appearance-heavy” for MC, but does not qualify for Complex designation.

– You will receive Trial and Final SC dates at the filing window when the Complaint is first filed.

– Court will no longer monitor service of Summons & Complaint.

– If LASC gets the Court Rule change it WILL soon seek, there will be no more CMCs in PI cases. And there will be no more OSCs re: Dismissal, Default, or Service, nor will there be any Post-Mediation Status Conferences.

– Trials, (if the Complaint is timely and properly served and if Notice of the Trial and Final SC was timely and properly given) will be assigned to one of the dedicated TRIAL courtrooms (10 of such in Mosk, plus others spread around the County). You may or may not get your Trial in Mosk and you will not know until the day of trial where you will be sent for trial.

– At the present time, the Court has not determined whether any changes will be made as to those PI cases that are currently pending before IC Judges.

– Insurance Bad Faith and wrongful termination/discrimination/harassment are NOT considered PI cases, and thus will remain in IC courts or in Complex.

– All LASC collections cases will now be handled out of two Master Calendar departments, one in Norwalk and one in Chatsworth. Collections Trials will be spread around the County.

– All non-collection limited jurisdiction cases, including limited jurisdiction PI cases, will be handled by two Master Calendar Courts in Mosk. These are different MC Courts from the above referenced PI MC Courts. Trials of limited jurisdiction PI cases will be spread across the County.

– All Civil Harassment cases will go to Family Courts.

– All Probate cases will be in Mosk (shuttering 7 to 9 branch probate courts); however, a bench officer MAY “travel” to conduct some guardianship or conservatorship hearings in some branches.

– All Small Claims will be heard only in six Courthouses (Lancaster, Mosk, Alhambra [for the entire Eastern part of the County], Van Nuys (north), Norwalk, and Inglewood).

– Unlawful Detainers will be heard only in four Courthouses (Mosk, Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Pasadena).

– The Temporary Judge (Judge Pro Tem) AND ALL Court-run ADR programs will be discontinued.

– Judges, Commissioners will focus on one, or possibly two types of cases only. There will be Geographic Hubs for some types of cases (as with Probate, supra)

– Further reductions in Courtrooms will occur, as will further reductions in Courtroom staff.

– There will be NO Court-provided Court Reporters for Civil matters. The Court will likely retain Court Reporters for some types of matters such as Family law.

– One court liaison will serve two to three Courtrooms–so the Courtroom will have only a Judge or Commissioner and a clerk most of the time.

– CCW will still operate as it now does; all complex cases, asbestos exposure cases, and class actions will be handled there as they are now. However, the Court is considering certain operational changes to endeavor to eliminate the volume of paper that must be processed in the Complex Cases.

– Settlement Courts will be maintained in the current numbers in the Districts, including seven downtown. Specific locations not yet determined.

– All Counsel are encouraged by the Court to significantly reduce their law & motion activity and to pursue ADR outside the Courts.

The post Important Changes Coming to Civil Case Management at the LA Superior Courts… appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.

9th Circuit: Medical Marijuana Not Protected by Americans With Disabilities Act

Sark — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:36:41 +0000

“We recognize that the federal government’s views on the wisdom of restricting medical marijuana use may be evolving,” wrote Judge Raymond C. Fisher. “But for now Congress has determined that, for purposes of federal law, marijuana is unacceptable for medical use.” See the LA Times article by Maura Dolan.

The post 9th Circuit: Medical Marijuana Not Protected by Americans With Disabilities Act appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.

A Right to Record the Cops?

Sark — Tue, 22 May 2012 00:00:09 +0000

UPDATE: On November 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined certiorari on a controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers in the line of duty. The result was to leave in place a federal appeals court ruling that Illinois’ anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people audiotaping the police. Read more in this Chicago Tribune article by Jason Meisner. On this issue of videotaping the police, here’s a Time article by Adam Cohen on the apparent birth of a new First Amendment right. Transparency is great for the people and the cops, so I’d love to see a movement with iPhones and GoPro cameras to safely record stops. Careful, though: this is emerging law; I don’t believe it’s yet been tested in the Ninth Circuit so YOU might end up being the Guinea pig! Maybe we’ll take it to court together!

The post A Right to Record the Cops? appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.

Federal Agent Civil Rights Liability…

Sark — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:34:42 +0000

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that individuals may sue federal government officials who have violated their constitutional rights.

The post Federal Agent Civil Rights Liability… appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.

Example of Facts Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity…

Sark — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:32:19 +0000

In Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (2007), the Ninth Circuit held that CHP officer “off on a mission of his own creation, abandoning his assignment, picking up a buddy for no apparent reason except the excitement of the chase, barging in ahead of the police already engaged in pursuit, once attempting to use force against [decedent] and twice doing so, creating each time a serious hazard for himself as well as [decedent], and finally stepping out of his patrol car and, without warning and without the need to defend himself or the other officers, killing [decedent]”… …”not entitled to qualified immunity.” You can read the opinion here; the facts, which turned my stomach, show how cops can and do go overboard.

The post Example of Facts Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity… appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.

Municipal Liability re § 1983…

Sark — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:30:17 +0000

In Monell v. NYC Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the United States Supreme Court case holding that municipalities can be held liable for violations of Constitutional rights through civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

The post Municipal Liability re § 1983… appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.

Qualified Immunity…

Sark — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:22:20 +0000

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) holds that “qualified immunity” shields government officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” In other words, reasonable ignorance of the law is an excuse for state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate “clearly established law.” Thus, a government agent’s civil rights lawsuit liability now no longer turns on whether the defendant acted with “malice,” but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that her actions violated clearly established law.

The post Qualified Immunity… appeared first on Babachanian | Legal Counsel.