If you’re litigating a putative class action in federal court and get a class certification order that is adverse to your client (whether plaintiff or defense), you may petition to take an immediate appeal of that order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). The petition to appeal must be filed quickly—within 14 days. Id. The short turnaround time “is designed to reduce the risk that attempted appeals will disrupt continuing proceedings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), Adv. Comm. Note (1998).
It would be nice if all appealable orders were listed under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. After all, the statute purports to govern the issue. But any search that ends there on the assumption that if it’s not listed, it’s not appealable, is headed for disaster. As seasoned appellate practitioners know, 904.1 can be just the starting point on the long and winding road of appealability. Failure can mean that the right to appeal is lost—forever. (Van Beurden Ins. Service, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56.)
Section 904.1 even uses a somewhat deceptive structure. For example, informing the reader that “an appeal may be taken from any of the following.” (Emphasis added.) Maybe that’s just legislative wit, recognizing that although an appeal can be taken, not all appeals should be taken. Ask any Court of Appeal justice, right?
A recent California Supreme Court decision resolved the issue of what claims can be subject to a Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 special motion to strike attacking an amended complaint. (Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637.) Specifically, the issue was whether an anti-SLAPP motion attacking an amended complaint could challenge claims already present in earlier versions of the complaint. The Court answered “no.”
California Supreme Court: Trial Courts Must Provide Court Reporters for Indigent Litigants to Protect Their Right to Meaningful Appeal
Ever since the Great Recession ushered in drastic cuts to state-court budgets, litigators have grown accustomed to the absence of court reporters in California courts. For trials and potentially dispositive motion hearings (and for all court hearings in unusually significant matters) lawyers have learned to arrange for their own court reporters, in order to make a complete record for appeals. This is an inconvenience for practicing lawyers and a regrettable expense for their clients. For indigent litigants, however, it can effectively imperil the right to appeal, as the California Supreme Court recently held.
California practitioners generally know that they cannot cite or rely upon unpublished or depublished California opinions in California courts, except when relevant to law of the case, res judicata, etc. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(a).) Violations of the “no-citation rule” can even be sanctionable. (People v. Williams (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1529; Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 869, 885-886.)
Recently, though, there has been an underground debate as to whether the judicial notice statute, Evid. Code, § 452(d)(1), might trump Rule 8.1115. (See Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 212, 218, fn. 14; Rafi Moghadam, Judge Nullification: A Perception of Unpublished Opinions (2011) 62 Hastings L.J. 1397; Scott Talkov, Citing Unpublished Opinions: The Conflict Between the No-Citation Rule and Judicial Notice, California Litigation Attorney Blog.)
While Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is alive and well in state courts, the statute may be on its way out in federal diversity cases in the Ninth Circuit. A very recent opinion from that court calls for en banc review, ostensibly to rule that no immediate appeal is available from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion. But as anyone familiar with the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of California’s anti-SLAPP statute knows, there is a movement afoot to rule that this creature of state procedure has no place at all in federal court. Will California’s anti-SLAPP statute survive?
The recent decision of the California Court of Appeal, Second District in Saheli v. White Memorial Medical Center (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 308, proves again the point that what is stated in your contractual arbitration clause matters. While it may seem axiomatic that words matter, in reality business law scribes generally spend less time on crafting arbitration clauses than the business terms of an agreement.