Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Page 3
C.A. Strikes Down Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule
Justice John Segal Disputes Majority’s View That Rule Was Improperly Adopted,
Questions Whether It Actually Is a Rule as, Opposed to a Housekeeping Policy
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday struck down a Los Angeles Superior Court local rule based on an adoption of it without observing the proper procedures—though the dissenter question whether the requirement at issue—the filing of joint trial statements—actually amounts to a court “rule.”
Acting Presiding Justice Laurie Zelon of Div. Seven wrote the majority opinion, in which Justice Gail Ruderman Feuer joined. Justice John Segal wrote a concurring opinion.
The appeals court reversed the judgment of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Nancy Ramirez awarding sole physical custody of a couple’s wo children to the father. The mother was barred from testifying or calling witnesses because her lawyer had failed to file a joint trial statement, required by a rule as required by a rule applicable to proceedings in the Alfred J. McCourtney Juvenile Justice Center.
Statute, Court Rule
Zelon pointed to Code of Civil Procedure §575.1 which sets forth procedures for adopting local rules, including putting them out for comment and filing them with the Judicial Council, and California Rules of Court, rule 10.613, to similar effect.
“Section 575.1, subdivision (c) and California Rules of Court, rule 10.613 do apply to this local rule,” she said. The jurist declared that the requirements were not observed and “that the local rule is invalid.
She went on to say:
“The court had options to punish counsel for her error short of denying Mother the ability to present any witnesses at the dispositional hearing. If the joint trial statement was necessary, the court could have resolved the issue by briefly continuing the hearing, permitting Mother to file a joint trial statement, and, if appropriate, scheduling a new hearing directing Mother’s counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against her….[T]he court’s application of its local rule improperly impaired Mother’s ability to present her case, thereby prejudicing her and requiring reversal of the judgment.”
Segal’s Opinion
Segal agreed that Ramirez erred in barring testimony by the mother and her daughter. He raised questions, however, saying:
“The only policy our decision targets provides: ‘Joint Trial Statements are required for all scheduled contests.’ I am not so sure this is a local rule; but if it is, it isn’t much of one. As the majority recognizes, the policy does not prescribe any deadlines for filing the statement (e.g., five court days prior to the scheduled contest), nor is there any consequence or sanction for noncompliance. The unacceptable consequence in this case derives not from the policy, but from the juvenile court’s application of the policy.”
He said of the form the lawyer had neglected to fill out:
“For the most part it does little more than request basic information about the case that courts throughout California routinely request. For example, it asks counsel to provide the names of the attorneys in the case, the time estimate for trial, whether there are any outstanding discovery or witness availability issues, whether there are any uncontested or stipulated issues, and whether counsel have met and conferred about settlement. Courts request this kind of information every day and in virtually every trial or contested proceeding. I do not think courts need to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 575.1 or California Rules of Court, rule 10.613, to obtain this information.”
Normal Inquiry
Segal added:
“Of particular relevance here, the Joint Trial Statement form submitted by the Department requires the parties to complete a section headed ‘Witness: Name/Testimony/Time Estimate.’ It is hard for me to conceive of a trial, evidentiary hearing, or contested proceeding where the judge does not ask who the witnesses will be, the general subject matter of their testimony, and how long counsel anticipate they will testify. A brief survey of the Courtroom Information page for the Stanley Mosk Courthouse on the Los Angeles Superior Court website reveals that judges in the civil division ask for this information (and more) as a matter of course and often require counsel to complete trial preparation forms unique to that courtroom.”
The case is In re Harley C., B293323.
Copyright 2019, Metropolitan News Company