Chapter 1: Introduction s2

Chapter 1: Introduction

A. COURSE PERSPECTIVE

p. 2, first full paragraph: Updated statistics—There were approximately 1,380,000 non- criminal filings in California’s superior courts in FY 2013-2014. See 2015 Court Statistics Report, Statewide Caseload Trends, 2004-2005 through 2013-2014 (Judicial Council of California). All federal district court civil filings in 2015 totaled 277,290 (28,780 of those matters were filed in California’s four federal district courts). United States Courts, Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary, Table C-3, December 31, 2015.

B. SOURCES OF PROCEDURAL LAW

1. Primary Authorities

Case Law p. 8, third paragraph, immediately following first sentence: In the year ending September 30, 2015, 80% of decisions rendered by the federal Courts of Appeals in cases terminated on the merits were unpublished. United States Courts, Judicial Facts and Figures 2015, Table 2.5, Sept. 30, 2015.

p. 13, end of Note 2: See also David R. Cleveland, The Perils of Nonprecedential Opinions, S.F. Daily J. at 6 (Feb. 25, 2015); and Adam Liptak, Courts Write Decisions that Elude Long View, New York Times (Feb. 2, 2015).

p. 14, Note 4: The California Supreme Court has stated that “unreported federal court decisions may be cited in California as persuasive authority.” Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 62 Cal.4th 919, 940, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66 83, 365 P.3d 845 (2016).

p. 14, Note 5, new second paragraph: Formerly, when the California Supreme Court granted review of a court of appeal opinion, that opinion could not be cited or relied upon. The court of appeal opinion was in essence “depublished.” As of July 1, 2016, CRC 8.1115(e) now permits court of appeal opinions on review to the California Supreme Court to be cited for persuasive value only (not as binding or precedential authority, unless the Supreme Court orders otherwise). The citation must refer to the grant of review. Amended Rule 8.1115(e) brings California in line with federal courts and all other state court systems with intermediate appellate courts, in which opinions under review by a higher court retain their published status and may be cited (if accompanied by a notation referring to the opinion’s review status).

Local Policies and Practices p. 26, top of page, following cite to Internal Operating Practices and Procedures of the [Court of Appeal] Fourth Appellate District, Division One: The Internal Operating Practices and Procedures of the California Supreme Court (revised April 2015) may be found within the publication The Supreme Court of California (7th ed. 2016).

2. Secondary Authorities Opinions of the California Attorney General

C. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH RESOURCES

p. 30, new second paragraph: In recent years, several online legal blogs have appeared, written by practitioners and scholars, covering procedure and practice in the California courts. These include: SCOCAblog.com (California Constitution Center and Hastings Law Journal); At the Lectern: Practicing Before the California Supreme Court (Horvitz & Levy); California Appellate Report: Thoughts on Recent Ninth Circuit and California Appellate Cases (Professor Shaun Martin, University of San Diego School of Law); The California Blog of Appeal: Practice and Developments in the State’s Appellate Courts (Attorney Greg May); and 111 North Hill Street: A Blog of California Civil Procedure (Attorney Michael Shipley).

D. THE CHOICE BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURT

p. 31, top of page, immediately following Id. cite for Lexmark International: The U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement concerning Article III standing emphasizes that an “injury- in-fact” must be both concrete and particularized. Concreteness means that the injury actually exists, while particularization means that the injury affected the person in a personal and individual manner. A concrete injury can be either tangible or intangible. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ___U.S.___, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2015).

p. 31, new paragraph immediately preceding subsection (b): Ripeness, like standing, is “‘a branch of the doctrine of justiciability.’” The ripeness requirement assures that courts will not issue mere advisory opinions or give general guidance. “[A]n issue is ripe for resolution if it ‘arises from a genuine present clash of interests and the operative facts are sufficiently definite to permit a particularistic determination rather than a broad pronouncement rooted in abstractions.’” The test for ripeness is: 1) whether the issue is appropriate for immediate resolution (by a court or arbitrator); and 2) whether a hardship may result from withholding the court’s or arbitrator’s consideration. Panoche Energy Center, LLC v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., ___Cal.App.4th___, ___Cal.Rptr.3d___ (2016) [2016 WL 3574540].