Stay updated with the latest legal news, expert analysis, and firm updates from KAASS LAW.
Whether you're facing a legal challenge or seeking proactive counsel, our award-winning team is ready to defend your interests.
It is important to have some clear understanding of the current legal framework before contemplating radically changing California's trial court system. Nevertheless, any brief explanation of such a complex undertaking would inevitably be somewhat oversimplified. Even so, a common factual basis from which to analyze the issue of unification is included here.
The California Constitution places the state judiciary in the Supreme Court of California, the courts of appeal, and three levels of the superior, municipal, and judicial tribunals. Superior courts are general jurisdiction trial courts. We hear civil suits when the contentious sum reaches 15,000$, domestic partnerships, and jury problems. Superior courts handle criminal charges and juvenile cases in police divisions. Municipal and criminal courts use the same powers for all practical purposes. Once the amount of controversy is $15,000 or/ and less, including small claims cases, they are empowered to hear civil suits. Municipal and appellate courts treat misdemeanors, preliminary felony hearings, and traffic cases (both misdemeanors and offenses) on the criminal side. That county of California must set up a superior court. Counties must be split into districts for municipal and court establishment purposes. Districts with a population of over 40,000 must have a municipal court. No city could be divided into more than one division of the tribunal.
The Judicial Council is the California judicial system's pinnacle in principle. The Council includes the Chief Justice and another Supreme Court Justice, 3 Appeal Court Justices, 5 Superior Court Court Judges, 3 Municipal Court Judges, 2 Justice Court Judges, 4 State Bar Members, and 1 member of each Legislature House. The role of the Council is to improve the administration of justice by monitoring judicial affairs, making recommendations, carrying out demonstration projects and adapting the regulations of the court. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall have the staff of the Judicial Council to assist with its work. The Judicial Council, in addition, exercises very little administrative control over the trial court, which essentially operate as autonomous, locally based units. The main task of the Judicial Council is to provide central planning and analysis in relation to the courts of the jury.
The underlying principle of the restructuring of the trial court is that these various, decentralized and conflicting providers of judicial services should be replaced by a framework "where the courts are structured and operated in such a way as to provide a consistent administration of justice throughout the state as nearly as possible." A basic principle of a consolidated trial court system is a greater degree of centralized administration. State trial courts will operate under similar sets of guidelines, laws and working conditions whenever possible. There are different mechanisms and models to developing a unified court system. A number of key indicators for determining the extent to which a system is consolidated include the degree to which:
According to Code of Civil Procedure of California (hereinafter: CCP) Section 191 of Title 3 “Persons specially invested with powers of a Judicial Nature” of Chapter 1 “Trial Jury Selection and Management Act”: The Legislature agrees that jury trial is a respected constitutional right and that jury service is a citizenship responsibility. It is the State of California's policy that all persons selected for jury service are randomly selected from the population of the area served by the court; that all qualified persons get an equal opportunity, in compliance with this chapter, to be known for jury service in the state as well as an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose; and that it is the responsibility of the State of California.
There are three types of Juries:
Under California law, a Superior Court has jurisdiction to make judicial decisions on the custody as well as care of children within the meaning of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Section 1101 et seq. and 8 C.F.R. Section 204.11), which includes, but is not limited to, the divisions of the superior court in the juvenile, probate and family courts. Pursuant to Section 1101(a) (27) (J) of Title 8 of the United States Code, these courts have authority to render the factual findings required to allow a child to apply to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for registration as a special immigrant juvenile.
When, pursuant to Section 1101(a) (27) (J) of Title 8 of the United States Code, an order is sought from the superior court making the necessary findings regarding the special immigrant juvenile status and there is evidence to support those findings, which may consist solely of, but is not limited to, a statement made by the child who is the subject of the petition, the court shall issue the order, whatever is the case:
Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for California's eminent domain rules. The hegemony is of great importance. As long as government payments just reimbursement, that national, state or federal governments take private property for public use. Private property can take over by eminent domain pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.030.
No withdrawal could request on the claimant of a copy of the request after operation or until the time has elapsed for all complaints, whichever is later. When an objection is a lodge on the ground that the other parties know or suspect to have interest in the property, the plaintiff shall serve or offer to inform such other parties that they may appear of the service and object to the withdrawal. The notice shall inform those parties that, to the degree of the amount withdrawn, their failure to object would result in the waiver of any rights against the complainant. Also, a plaintiff will file and serve on the applicant a document setting out ànames of the parties to whom the notice has been given and the dates of service, and ànames and last known addresses of the other parties known or suspected to have interest in the property but not served so. A plaintiff can represent parties not served by the plaintiff.
California's Supreme Court is the highest court in the state. Its primary function is to guide and harmonize state law development. After confirmation by the Judicial Appointments Commission, the court composes of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. These are who stand for 12-year retention election at the first post-appointment governor’s election. The court's chambers have been in San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza since 1923.
According to Code of Civil procedure of California (hereinafter: CCP) Section 165 : The justices of the Supreme Court as well as the courts of appeal, or any of them, may issue in chambers all orders and writings that are normally issued in the first instance upon an ex parte petition, with the exception of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition; and may hear, at their discretion, applications for discharge of such orders and writings.
In California law primary assumption of the risk doctrine was first set forth in Knight v. Jewett (1992). The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is applicable to sports or sports-related recreational. Activities where the conduct or conditions that otherwise can be a consideration of danger are usually the essential part. Primary assumption of risk arises where a plaintiff willingly engages in a sport or activity involving certain inherent risks. Primary assumption of risk usually absolves the defendant of a duty of care toward the plaintiff with regard to injury incurred in the course of a sporting or sports-related recreational activity covered by the doctrine. A person can be only guilty if he intentionally injures another one or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity in the sport.
When a person has an injury while playing sports or engaging in another recreational activity, he can seek financial compensation for the caused injuries against the responsible party through a California personal injury lawsuit. According to CACI 470 if the plaintiff claims that he has an injury while participating in sport or other recreational activity, and the defendant is responsible for that harm, he must be able to prove all of the following elements to establish the claim.
According to CACI 3113 recklessness in California is something more than just the failure to use reasonable care. Recklessness is more than simple negligence, as it involves more than inadvertence, unskillfulness, incompetence, or a failure to take precautions. Recklessness is defined as a conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the high danger to other people involved in it. (Delaney v. Baker 1999)
To establish the claim the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements:
Thus, to be found liable for reckless conduct the defendant must have knowledge of a high degree of probability that dangerous consequences will result from his actions. Moreover, the defendant should act with deliberate or conscious disregard of those probable consequences.
The California Unfair Practices Act , which is found at Section 17000 of the California Business and Professions Code, deals with certain pricing practices, such as charging different prices to competing customers below cost pricing. Generally, the California Unfair Practices Act prohibits the following types of pricing practices
According to the Business and Professions Code, it is prohibited to sell a product below its cost for the purpose of destroying competition or injuring competitors, hence the term below cost pricing.
According to CACI 3301, in case the plaintiff claims that the defendant engaged in unlawful sales below cost he must be able to prove all of the following elements to establish this claim.
Comparative fault is a negligence rule according to which parties can share fault for one single accident, and the plaintiff can still receive compensation. According to California Civil Code Section 1714 every person is responsible for intentional acts he commit, and injuries that arise because of his acts. California is a pure comparative fault state, where a plaintiff has the entitlement for compensation regardless of his percentage of fault. Thus, in case the courts finds a plaintiff guilty for 85% in an accident he will still be gain some compensation. In a modified rule state, a plaintiff usually cannot exceed a certain degree of fault.
The rule of comparative fault is based on a public policy of holding people legally liable for their actions. In case a person was injured partly because of his own negligence and partly because of the negligence of other people, he should not be totally barred from bringing a claim.
According to CACI 405 in case the defendant claims that plaintiff's own negligence contributed to his harm he must be able prove the following elements:
Whistleblowing usually involves raising concerns about a company’s negligent, unethical, unlawful, fake, fraudulent or dangerous action. The behavior can vary from violating corporate policy and procedural requirements to unlawful transactions, or to a threat against public safety, health, including fraud and safety violations. Here are some informative tips in whistleblower protection.
According to CACI 4603 to establish the claim the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements:
According to Law All individuals are eligible and qualified as prospective jurors of the court, with the exception of:
No person shall be excluded from eligibility for jury service in the State of California for any other reason than the reasons set out in Section 203 CCP. Contact KAASS LAW today for any further legal assistance and or representation.
Special Immigrant Juvenile Findings allows you to live lawfully in the U.S. You can apply for permission to work/ operate. You should apply for a green card immediately (legal permanent residency).
You can apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile status if:
There will be two steps:
Within the 20-day period, the plaintiff can file withdrawal objections on one or more of the following grounds:
If any part of the money deposits under the Chapter 6 of CCP (Deposit and Withdrawal of Probable Compensation; Possession Prior to Judgment) has been a withdrawal. The receipt of any of these money shall constitute a waiver of all claims and defenses in favor of the individuals receiving such payment by the operation of law, except a claim for greater compensation. Any withdrawal under this article by a party beyond the amount eventually decides the eminent domain proceeding, shall pay to the parties. The judgment will enter by the court accordingly. Contact KAASS LAW for any further assistance and or seek legal representation.
Superior court Judges may, in chambers:
Also, according to Section 166 of Code of Civil Procedure of California part B: A judge shall exercise all the powers and perform all the roles and duties imposed on a judge as being contrary to the court, out of court, anywhere in the government, or that a judge may exercise or perform in chambers. What else to know?
For any further assistance and or seeking legal representation, contact KAASS LAW today!
Conduct is entirely outside the range of ordinary activity in case it:
A person can’t be responsible for injuries resulting from conduct that was merely careless, accidental, or negligent
Secondary assumption of the risk refers to cases when the defendant owes the plaintiff a legal duty to protect him from a particular injury or harm, but the plaintiff proceeds to encounter the risk imposed by the defendant’s breach of duty. Cases, which involve secondary assumption of the risk are comparative negligence, which is a legal standard dealing with conditions, where two parties to an action are partially at fault. According to CACI 404 plaintiff’s damages aren’t recoverable to the extent his own negligence contributed to the caused injuries. This will be proportionately reduced to reflect the percentage of his fault. Thus, in California law, plaintiff can still recover damages after his percentage of fault has been deducted, even in case his degree of negligence was more that the defendant’s. Though, it is important to mention, that comparative negligence doctrine only applies to cases where the plaintiff’s conduct wasn’t intentional. For any further legal assistance and or seeking attorney representation, contact KAASS LAW today!
A person who is acting recklessly does so with the knowledge that his actions involve a risk of causing harm to another people. Thus, a person is conscious of what his conduct, knows that his conduct can cause a harm or injury, but he still engages in the act.
A person who is acting negligently can be unaware that his conduct involves a risk of causing harm, even if he should have known about that. In California law, a person is acting negligently in case he is acting in a way that a reasonably careful person would not act in the same situation, or fails to act in a way that a reasonably careful person would act in the similar situation.
Here are some examples of recklessness:
In case the defendant is found guilty in performing reckless conduct and causing harm or injuries to the plaintiff, then the trier-of-fact may award damages to the plaintiff. Damages must be rationale and be causally related to the accident.
The plaintiff may also be entitled to punitive or exemplary damages, in case he proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was acting with malice. For any further assistance or seeking legal representation, contact KAASS LAW today!
Loss leaders are defined as selling below cost with the intention to induce the purchase of other merchandise, divert business from competitors, or mislead purchasers.
According to CACI 3302 in case the plaintiff claims that the defendant offered to sell, sold, offered the use of product or service as an unlawful loss leader, he must be able to prove the following elements to establish this claim:
According to California Business and Professions Code Section 17049, the word “price” should be read sufficiently broadly to include collateral contracts, special rebates, or any device of any nature whereby such sale below cost is in fact or substance affected.
According to CACI 3303 “cost” means all costs of doing business, including variable costs that tend to change with sales, such as sales commissions, and also fixed costs that don’t tend to change with sales, such as light and heat. Costs of doing business can include:
In unfair competition cases, the plaintiff can’t recover punitive damages. https://youtu.be/u0ylwefv4WI
In case the defendant proves all the above mentioned elements, the plaintiff’s damages will be reduced by the jury's determination of the percentage of his responsibility. According to CACI 406 the percentages must be total 100 percent when dividing up fault among the plaintiffs, defendants, and any non-parties.
The Court or jury will assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in the accident. Once the percentages of fault are assigned. Each party will be responsible for a percentage of his medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other financial damages. Which are equal to the percentage assigned to that party.
In case when two or more defendants are responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries, he can recover damages from either or both of the defendants; in other term: joint and several liability. Joint and several liability is applicable to economic damages, including medical expenses, loss of income, property damage and loss of earning capacity. The plaintiff can also recover pain and suffering.
As stated above, California is a comparative fault state. This allows the plaintiff to recover damages even if he shares the fault for accident. Contributory negligence is a harsher rule. This usually provides that in case the plaintiff is negligent in causing his own injury, he cannot get any compensation. The majority of states use some version of comparative fault, either modified comparative negligence or pure comparative fault. Some states follow a combination of both types of negligence laws.
The plaintiff must have a reasonable belief that the defendant’s policies violated federal, state, or local statutes, rules, or regulations. The disclosure of policies that an employee considers gross misconduct, wasteful, unwise is not protected. Disclosure of information is protected even though disclosing can be a part of the plaintiff’s work duties.
In case the employer fires the employee for whistleblowing illegal information, his action would be considered wrongful termination, and he will be penalized for workplace retaliation against whistleblowers. Whistleblowers have a right to remain anonymous, employers can try to discover who made the complaint or file a False Claim Act case.
Whistleblowing laws in California can provide monetary rewards to whistleblowers who managed to successfully recover funds for the government. In case the whistleblowing was related to fraud against the government, the person can receive a monetary reward through a qui tam lawsuit. According to the False Claims Act, a person who supports stopping fraud can receive up to thirty percent of what the government recovers from the guilty party. In some cases, whistleblowers can also receive compensation for the emotional distress they suffered as a result of retaliation by the company or individual they reported. For any further assistance or legal consultation, contact KAASS LAW today! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhaH4mEDj7k