California Civil Procedure – Shapell – Spring 2010
Introduction (CCP §§ 128, 177-187, 575-575.2; CRC 2.30, 3.20, 8.1105 – 8.1115; FRAP 32.1)
· Sources of procedural law in CA:
o Primary: statutes (CCP, civil code, evidence, gvmt), local rules, statewide rules, Constitutions, (CA) case law
· US Constitution, 7th amendment right to jury trial is not in California
· California Constitution Art I, §1 – Right to privacy explicit
· California Court System:
o 3 levels: Superior (trial & small claims), Ct of Appeal, Supreme Ct
o There are 6 district courts at the appellate level, but they are all considered to be 1 court
§ If 2 districts are in conflict, then: go w/ the more persuasive, more recent one
Schmeir v. Supreme Court of California (8)
· System of publication and citation of unpublished cases is upheld: Cannot cite to an unpublished case
· Federal Equivalent FRAP 32.1 – can cite to unpublished federal cases post-2007
o Very controversial, 9th Cir really disagrees w/ it
· State-wide Rules of Court (CRC)
o Adopted by a 29 member judicial council, 10 titles (2, 3, 8 are important)
o Cannot be inconsistent w/ statutes
Trans-Action v. Jelinek (15)
· Jelinek ordered to pay sanctions for behaving poorly in court under CRC 2.30
· CRC 2.30 ruled invalid, as it had no statutory authorization, was not intended to be used in this way
· Local Rules
o Rules for a particular court. Judges expect you to know them before appearing in court. Must be adopted by a certain procedure. Note: CRC preempts local rules for many things
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (CCP §§ 32.5, 85-116.221, 187, 396, 403.010-403.070, 580(b))
· The power of a trial court to hear or determine a cause of action
· Broader in California than what is available in the federal district courts
· California used to have a split in the trial courts: superior and municipal
o Now there is limited/unlimited (LCC/UCC) distinction w/ a $25,000 dividing line
o What’s the difference? – LCC: less discovery, pleading, motions
· Examples:
o $20,000 asked for è LCC. Can more than $25,000 be awarded? – No (Wosniak v Lucutz)
o Multiple CoAs – aggregate the amounts CCP §§378, 379
o Multiple Ps – do not aggregate, unless they will suffer injury/harm from divided trials
o Multiple Ds – Aggregate if joint liability, related
§ 3 auto insurance policies w/ different companies à not 1 trial, but 3
Stern v. Superior Court (39)
· Judge reclassified a case w/ multiple Ps to several LCCs. Ps wanted it to be a class action, and originally filed as a UCC. Was this okay? – No
o (1) no opportunity to contest the reclassification (2) the court’s justification was based on old law
· The court only looks at if the verdict will be for ≤ $25K
· The standard for UCC à LCC is stricter than LCC à UCC because there is a burden on the litigants
o The possibility of a UCC level verdict
· Cross complaints
o Original: $18K, CC: $30k à entire case becomes UCC
o Original: $30K, CC: $12K à entire case remains UCC
Personal Jurisdiction (CCP §§ 410.10, 410.50)
· Non-resident defendant and the power to bind judgment against them
· CA “long-arm” statute §410.10 – the broadest of any State
· If none of:
o Physical presence in CA – “tab” jurisdiction
o Domiciled in CA
o Consent by appealing
o Forum selection clause
Is available, then look at minimum contacts (International Shoe v. Washington)
Service of Process (CCP §§ 412.20, 413.10-417.40)
· 2 parts: (1) Delivery of summons (2) Copy of complaint
· Who can serve? – anyone over 18 years old, not party to the action
Inside California
Outside California
Individual
1. Personal (Espindola v. Nunez)
2. Substituted (Espindola v. Nunez)
3. Mail (415.30)
4. Publication (have to exhaust all other methods)
1-4
5. 1st class mail w/ return receipt (Dill v. Berquist)
Entity
1-4, but 4 is never really going to happen
1-5
Espindola v. Nunez (59)
· Personal delivery – wife; substituted service – husband
· 415.20 – “reasonable diligence” (a) entity (b) individuals
Dill v. Berquist (63)
· A case where service was not proper
· Complied w/ 415.40 (how), but addressed to the corporation itself, so failed 416.10 (who)
· Just need to address to any of the statutorily listed people in 416.10 (ex: vice president of company)
Special Appearance to Challenge Jurisdiction & Service of Process (CCP §§ 418.
. Dismissal
o Stay allows another court to hear the case, but the 1st court still retains the right to bring the case back if they feel that there was no reason to transfer it
o Factors: (1) Suitability of alternate court, (2) Balancing of interests
Chong v. Superior Ct (99)
· Wanted case heard in Hong Kong instead of the US à damages potentially less there
· Decided on a stay, because the court wasn’t sure that China would behave after taking back control of Hong Kong, but gave them the opportunity to do so
Conflict of Laws
Kearny v. Salomon Smith Barney (107)
· P: Residents of California
· D: Georgia business who recorded phone conversations
· Whose state law applies? – Government Interest Analysis (tort)
o Are the laws the same or different?
o Is there a true conflict? (Are the interests of the states at conflict)
o Which State would be more negatively affected? – Comparative impairment
· Test applied: California more greatly impaired if Georgia law applied
· Relief:
o Injunctive: okay to move forward (California law)
o Damages: none (Georgia law)
Pleadings; Complaint (CCP §§ 411.10, 422.10-425.13, 446-452)
· Complaint:
o a form of pleading
o a document that initiates a suit
· Purpose of the complaint
o Notice of claims/disputes
o Defines the issues (narrowed down further w/ the answer)
· Different pleading standards:
o Federal: notice pleading (less detail required)
o California: fact (code) pleading (ultimate facts in the complaint)
§ CCP 425.10 (a)(1): facts, CoA, ordinary and concise language
· Tactical allegations, not legal conclusions
o Example: can’t say “he was negligent”
o Could plead the 4 factual elements of negligence
People ex rel Dept of Transportation v. Superior Ct (133)
· Form w/ complaint did not specify enough information
· Is this demurrable? – Yes
· What does the CoA mean?
o Legal theory
o Relief sought
o Invasion of primary right à California
