The California Appellate Law Podcast

Are you expecting a lawsuit? And do you want to get that lawsuit into federal court? If your client is domiciled in California, you need to know about “snap removals.” If you get wind of the lawsuit before it is served, you might be able to defeat the removal-bar on home-state defendants.But don’t commit a “super snap” removal. That’s when you remove before the complaint is officially filed. The 9th Circuit just rejected those.We discuss Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., and how to learn about lawsuits before they are even filed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 23-55403 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Racial minorities are sometimes removed from prospective juries—just like everybody else. But the Legislature is so concerned that this could happen on the (obviously improper) basis of race that the Racial Justice Act prohibits a challenge to a racial minority even on the basis of proper factors, such as lack of life experience. And if that happens, the Legislature has declared not only that this is against law, but operates as a get-a-new-trial-free card.But the California Constitution prohibits get-a-new-trial-free cards. Instead, no judgment may be reversed—even if the judgment is rife with error—unless the error results in a “miscarriage of justice.”Consider how these opinions might be reconciled:People v. Uriostegui (D2d6 Apr. 5, 2024 No. B325200) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ held violations of the Racial Justice Act are per se reversible.In People v. Simmons (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 323, Justice Yegan argued in dissent that a attempting to bind the courts to a legislative definition of the constitutional term “miscarriage of justice” violates the doctrine of separation of powers.The Supreme Court in F.P. v. Monier (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1099 held that, although the Legislature mandates that trial courts make express findings on principal controverted issues, a court’s failure to do so is not per se reversible because the Constitution first requires a finding that the failure worked a miscarriage of justice.In Abdelqader v. Abraham (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2022 No. D078652) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, failure to make the statutorily-required findings under F.C. 3044 to support awarding custody to a person previously found to have committed domestic violence was per se reversible.In re Marriage of Steiner and Hosseini (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 519 held that, although the Legislature purported to make inadequate disclosures in property-division cases per se reversible, the Legislature cannot provide “a ‘get-a-new-trial-free’ card” in light of the constitutional requirement to show a miscarriage of justice.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Tim’s writeup on Oriostegui, The Racial Justice Act Is Unconstitutional

Every day as an appeals lawyer brings new puzzles. But some puzzles repeat. So in this episode, we compile the top 10 tips dispensed regularly to trial attorneys working in family court. They include:👉 Know your appealable issues—appeal now, or lose it forever!👉 Request a statement of decision. Don’t need to, you say? Judge already gave a tentative opinion, you say? You really need to hear this advice.👉 Get the standard of review right, and use this tip when challenging discretionary rulings.👉 Brief like an appellate attorney: Put cites on everything. Put headers on everything.👉 Make a record!And five more!One thing we didn’t cover: Making Family Code § 2122 set-aside motions. Definitely consider that in your case.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Good example of the importance of the statement of decision: Abdelqader v. Abraham (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2022 No. D078652) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---- [F.C. 3044 presumption of unfitness triggered by prior DV finding may be rebutted only by written findings—lack of SOD required reversal]. Tim’s writeup on Abdelqader here. One of CALP’s top cases here.But Abdelqader was not followed in Marriage of Burger.Abdelqader was followed in Hutchins.Tim’s article on sanctions for appellate briefing defects: “Attorney who ignored appellate rules hit with $50k in sanctions”. Case is Mandir, Inc. v. Tiwari (D4d3 Mar. 27, 2023 No. G060437) (nonpub. opn.).Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

The U.S. Supreme Court provides awaited guidance on public officials’ use of social media, and the California Supreme Court gives a cautionary tale about waiving the right to a jury trial. Jeff and I discuss:📰Free Speech on Government Social Media: Lindke v. Freed (Mar. 15, 2024, No. 22-611), notable for being short and unanimous, holds that, when a public official talks about official business on a private social media page, it’s no longer a private social media page.⚖️Jury waivers: If you waive, and the trial judge declines to set aside the waiver, it’s game over: any right to appeal is symbolic only.🤷Also symbolic: the different between waiver and forfeiture. The difference, it is said, is that waiver is intentional. But the Court notes that waiver can also be unintentional. That pretty much obliterates any distinction between the terms, save for spelling.👎The facts were based solely on filed documents, not testimony. So appellate review is de novo, right? Wrong. Appellate courts don’t defer to fact-finding because the trial court is better at it. They defer because it’s not the appellate court’s job description.⛪A Church of Scientology case involving Leah Remini is poised for an anti-SLAPP appeal.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Lindke v. Freed (Mar. 15, 2024, No. 22-611)TriCoast Builders v. Fonnegra (Feb. 26, 2024 No. S273368)Jones v. Solgen Construction, LLC (D5 Feb. 26, 2024, No. F085918) [cert. for pub.].Remini v. Church of Scientology“Motion granted, Bimbo!” — the Candi Bimbo Doll case; Wood v. S.F. Cnty. Superior Court (D1d2 Mar. 14, 2024 No. A168463) [cert. for pub.]Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Raffi Melkonian has argued and won in the U.S. Supreme Court, and started the #AppellateTwitter community of appellate attorneys on Twitter/X, where he has over 65,000 followers, and speaks and writes on appeals across the country. And Raffi is here to tell you that building a business on an appellate practice—even a very successful one—is very hard to do.We discuss his five observations about why a full-time appellate practice is hard:Breaking in to the practice is very hard.Don’t expect to get full-time work writing appellate briefs—you’re going to have to mix it up some in the trial court.Once you’ve done the very hard work modifying expectations and breaking into the practice, get ready: maintaining it full-time is even harder.Which is why you are going to have to make some trade-offs.The business of law was not designed with an appellate practice in mind, so doing high-end sophisticated appeals all the time is no one’s idea of a sound business model.Raffi Melkonian’s biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter/X feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Raffi’s X thread, “5 ideas for law students and associates about appellate practice.”Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

We discuss how to avoid appellate sanctions, and an unusually successful motion for reconsideration:$50k sanctions against appellant for blowing appellate procedure.Motion for reconsideration was untimely, but righteous. Trial judge did not take the Court of Appeal’s hint, so writ issued. (But the trial judge was right to let the writ issue.)Anti-SLAPPs don’t require a line-by-line list of allegations like regular strike motions. But there’s a split on this.Do you need appellate specialization credits? Maybe not as many as you think if you use Lisa Perrochet’s tip.We also discuss a case on the Racial Justice Act, a rare case reversed for lack of substantial evidence, and a Public Records Act case.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Attorney who ignored appellate rules hit with $50k in sanctions in Mandir, Inc. v. Tiwari (D4d3 Mar. 27, 2023 No. G060437) (nonpub. opn.)Denying an untimely but meritorious motion for reconsideration was reversible error  Contreras v. Superior Court (Champion Dodge, LLC) (D2d5 Feb. 16, 2024 No. B331737) [nonpub. opn.]Splitting from SLAPP precedent, appellate court holds you don’t have to do a line-by-line list of allegations challenged in an anti-SLAPP motion Miszkewycz v. County of Placer (D3 Jan. 25, 2024 No. C095426).Racial Justice Act motion requires case-specific facts, not mere statistical analysis Austin v. Superior Court (D2d2 Jan. 25, 2024 No. E080939)Read the full article at the KowalLawGroup.com blog here

There are 30,000 law clerks in the U.S., and we have no good way to know to judge their experiences. So Judge Douglas Nazarian of the Appellate Court of Maryland—and board member of the Legal Accountability Project—asks judges everywhere to take the LAP Pledge. The Project hosts a growing database of survey responses from judicial clerks, but it needs judges to pledge that they will invite their clerks to fill out the surveys.Uncomfortable taking the pledge publicly? No problem: please invite your clerks to do the survey anyway.Why should you support the Legal Accountability Project? Judge Nazarian explains:The laudable work of gathering data to facilitate quality clerkships is nothing new. Law schools do it. But that means the data is fragmented and incomplete. The LAP centralizes it.The data is credible. Only confirmed clerks can submit surveys.The data is confidential. Only clerkship applicants can access it.Still, many clerks may feel insecure about submitting a survey without their judges’ endorsement.If you are a judge, please sign the pledge, and encourage your feeder law schools to support the Legal Accountability Project’s work.If you are a clerk or a former, submit a survey.If you are an attorney, tell your alma mater that, next time you sign a check, you’d like to know if they support the Legal Accountability Project.Judge Douglas R. M. Nazarian’s biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Legal Accountability ProjectLegal Accountability Project — Post-Clerkship SurveyEp. 39 and ep. 98 w/ Aliza ShatzmanVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

You thought health and wellness was just for hippies, losers and weirdos. But you were wrong. Leslie Porter explains that if you are waiting for your health issues to become acute enough for a prescription, you are not at your best. Not only are you laying the groundwork for possible big problems down the road, you have lower energy, weakened drive, and diminished alertness.If you won’t do it for yourself, get healthy to crush your enemies better.Leslie Porter’s biography and LinkedIn profile and email, leslie@leslieporter.com  Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Next time your opposing counsel takes issue with something you say, don’t be surprised to find a complaint in the next filing citing to rule 8.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct—the new “snitch rule.”There are about a dozen terms of legal art in the snitch rule, so we asked Judge Meredith Jury (Ret.) and Certified Bankruptcy Specialist Stella Havkin what they mean:If you arguably misstate fact or law, is that a reportable event? Answer: Assume it is.What will this do to collegiality in the profession? Answer: Nothing good.If a partner committed indiscretions with the trust account, does it matter that you didn’t know about it? Answer: Don’t count on it.Every other state already has a snitch rule. How much guidance do they provide on its application? Answer: Very little.Will the snitch rule drive in reports to prevent Girardi-type scandals? Answer: The Bar had received some 200 reports about Girardi, so it’s unclear what more reports would have done.But the snitch rule is a good idea, right? Answer: Check back in after a few years.And something you probably didn’t know: The reason California doesn’t follow the ABA Model Rules is because they are rules of ethics, where California’s Rules are rules of discipline. We discuss the difference in theory (interesting!) and the difference in application (not much, actually).Judge Meredith Jury’s (Ret.) biography.Bankruptcy Specialist Stella Havkin’s biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 8.3, “Reporting Professional Misconduct”Ethics Spotlight: The New ‘Snitch Rules’, California Lawyers Association, Nov. 2023.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Just a few years out of law school, Kyle O’Malley won a landmark case in the Supreme Court of California. The employer’s screening service in *Raines v. US Healthworks Medical Group*, 15 Cal.5th 268 (2023) used a generic questionnaire asking about menstrual cycles, hemorrhoids, hair loss, and all sorts of fool questions not tailored to the specific job (or to any job, for that matter). Even though the agent was not the “employer,” the Court held that business agents performing employment-related tasks for other companies can be held liable for discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The decision has been described as a “landmark” victory for workers, with the California Supreme Court listing it as one of four “high profile cases” decided in 2023.We also talk with appellate legend Randy Erlewine. All California litigators owe him a debt for the “get out of jail free” card case of Carter v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 994, allowing a deposition to get documents if you missed the deadline to move to compel on written requests. We discuss developing a cutting-edge practice and building a firm to a vision.Kyle O’Malley’s biography and LinkedIn profile.Randy Erlewine’s biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:CLA’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion CommitteeRaines v. U.S. HealthWorks Med. Grp., No. S273630 (Cal. Aug. 21, 2023)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

The 9th Circuit is taking up the ostensible narrow issue of appealability of anti-SLAPP orders. But it could be broader. Much broader. If the court decides anti-SLAPPs are procedural rather than substantive, says Cory Webster, that would mean no more anti-SLAPP motions in federal court.We also discuss that recent panel that departed from an earlier decision, ruling it was “clearly irreconcilable” with recent Supreme Court precedent, even if it arguably wasn’t.And why was that homelessness case—which ultimately came down to a procedural question of waiver—published? Did Judge Bumatay, who authored the dissent, request publication? We indulge in some rank speculation.Cory Webster’s biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Should Anti-SLAPP denials be appealable in federal court? The 9th Circuit will take another look. Panel decision in Martinez v. ZoomInfo Techs. (No. 22-35305 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2024)).Rep. Raskin’s anti-SLAPP billClimate Change on Trial podcastPanel rejects 9th Cir. precedent by saying it was overruled—even though it wasn’t Munoz v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., No. 22-55941 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2024)In San Fran homelessness case in 9th Cir., two stark opinions about waiver Coal. On Homelessness v. City of San Francisco, No. 23-15087 (9th Cir. 2024)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

The Supreme Court has granted cert on whether prosecuting a homeless sidewalk-camper is cruel and unusual punishment. And the 9th Circuit has granted en banc review whether anti-SLAPP denials are appealable.Also: You are doing MSJ separate statements wrong (maybe). There are two schools of thought, and the Court of Appeal in a partially published opinion came down hard against the school that includes in the separate statement all narrative and background facts.Tim and Jeff discuss.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.SB 662, to create electronic recordings of court proceedings, fails.In San Fran homelessness case in 9th Cir., two stark opinions about waiver Coal. On Homelessness v. City of San Francisco, No. 23-15087 (9th Cir. 2024)Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc., No. G062736 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2023)Justice Baker is not a big fan of Costco Gylfie v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (D2d5 Dec. 27, 2023 No. B320694 [nonpub. opn.]

California law now provides for initial discovery disclosures. Get a template handy for your upcoming cases. And watch out for the new minimum $1,000 sanction for discovery misconduct.And some recent cases:The definitive answer whether orders on motion to enforce settlements are appealable is: Nobody has any friggin’ idea.And the answer on how to get review of orders on contempt attorneys' fees is pretty much the same.And after scouring cases for months, Tim finally found a reversal based on an evidentiary ruling…and it’s unpublished. And there’s a dissent. (And the dissent may be better reasoned than the majority.) So challenges to rulings on evidence are still losers.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Order granting motion to enforce settlement held not appealable, furthering a split of authority, House v. Skanska U.S. Civil W. Cal. Dist. (D4d2 Jan. 5, 2024 No. E079363) [nonpub. opn.]State wins a writ excusing it from disclosing whether its private research firm engaged in animal cruelty, Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court (D3 Dec. 29, 2023 No. C099588) [nonpub. opn.]Yes, you can use a motion in limine as a motion for summary judgment, Memula v. Mojave Radiation Oncology Med. Grp. (D4d2 Dec. 14, 2023 No. D082262) [nonpub. opn.].See other Items at the KowalLawGroup.com blog here: https://bit.ly/3SjrXnIVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Yisrael Gelb focuses his appellate practice on helping plaintiff lawyers beat summary judgment. We talk about some of his approaches to successfully opposing summary judgment motions, including:🔧 Look for common defects in the moving party’s separate statement🤜 Push back on the moving party’s showing. It is often not up to snuff. Drive that point home before turning to the opposing party’s burden.✒️ Elevate your writing—an MSJ is a trial on paper, but great trial skills often do not translate.We also discuss Yisrael’s new podcast for plaintiffs’ attorneys, going by the provocative title, “The Ambulance Chasers.”Yisrael Gelb’s biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Looking back on the year’s 50 episodes, we discuss some of our best guests, including our 9th Circuit correspondent, Cory Webster, our legal-writing correspondent, Ryan McCarl, our legal-movie correspondent, Gary Wax, and our inspirational public-interest appellate lawyers Chris Schandevel and Carl Cecere. There’s our legal-citation-parenthetical maverick Jack Metzler. And then there are our legal scholars and authors Stephen Vladeck, Jeff Kosseff, and Eugene Volokh.After talking about some great guests, we talk about some bad cases. Why don’t we talk about good cases? We discuss that, too.We also talk about some of our takeaways from our interviews about other states’ appellate rules. We grumble about some of the rules in California, but we have some things to recommend to other states. But also some things we could learn.Then we turn to some of the legal tech we can’t do without. Topping the list: ClearBrief (via Jackie Schafer), followed by CoCounsel.Hope to have you along in 2024!Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:The Coming Changes to Med-Mal Caps, with Ben IkutaUsing ChatGPT responsibly, with Jayne WoodsShould AI Replace Law Clerks? Yes, says Adam UnikowskyFrom BigLaw to Solo: Carl Cecere on the freedom to take significant casesRacking Up Appellate Argument Experience with Chris SchandevelCory Webster’s 9th Circuit Dispatches See other Items at the KowalLawGroup.com blog here: https://bit.ly/3viYwJrVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Prof. Eugene Volokh joined us to discuss restraining orders, how many of them violate the First Amendment as unlawful prior restraints, and how you can spot the First Amendment problems. The purpose of a restraining orders is to get a person to stop harassing you, but “harassment” can be a pretty vague term—and the same goes for “bullying,” “cyberbullying,” “hate speech,” etc.—especially when no physical violence threatened or happening. The result is that many restraining orders not only prevent the subject from speaking TO the plaintiff, but from speaking ABOUT the plaintiff, and last INDEFINITELY.Here are the key issues to spot the next time a client calls you about a restraining order or injunction that affects free speech:Raise First Amendment challenges, and get familiar with the precedent by reading Prof. Volokh’s articles.Look to see if the restraining order merely prohibits speaking to the plaintiff, or goes further and prohibits speaking ABOUT the plaintiff. That’s a big difference that implicates the First Amendment.If the subject of a restraining order is facing contempt, consider raising the unconstitutionality of the order as a collateral bar. An unconstitutional order cannot be a basis for contempt, and unconstitutionality is never waived.Prof. Eugene Volokh’s biography, LinkedIn profile, and X/Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and “Cyberstalking”, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731 (2013)Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases), 45 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol. 147 (2022).Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)Chan v. Ellis, 296 Ga. 838 (Ga. 2015)"The First Amendment and Refusals to Deal” via ReasonVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Employment and class-action attorney Glenn Danas has argued 49 appeals in state and federal appellate courts throughout the country, including a current streak of eight consecutive reversals. Glenn talks with us about litigating the landmark Iskanian case, and how he turned the panel that initially issued a 148-page tentative against his client.Glenn also shares:Appeals on contingency? Yes, it can work, in the right case.About that ABC test: yes, some workers would prefer to be contractors, but more would rather be employees.About the judicial bias for arbitration: the original purpose was for those oddball cases—think shipwrecks—where jurisdiction and venue were uncertain, not for every garden-variety lawsuit.Glenn Danas’s biography, LinkedIn profile, and X (fka Twitter) feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLCFuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (Dave Ettinger’s write-up)LA Times on Beachbody class-actionVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Turns out you CAN shout “fire” in a crowded theater, and lots of other lies besides—unless the government meets a heavy burden, that is. The author of four books and more than 20 academic articles, First Amendment scholar and Naval Academy associate professor Jeff Kosseff makes the case for the freedom to speak freely, and even to tell lies, free (mostly) from threat of state sanction. Our discussion covers:The “marketplace of ideas” is better than the government at separating truth from lies.Why every other state and Congress should just copy-and-paste California’s anti-SLAPP statute into their code books.Is there a free-speech right to ChatGPT, if there’s no human speaker? Yes—there is not just a right to make statements, but also to receive them.Jeff was surprised at the critical reaction to his thesis that there may be a right to lie. But thankfully the courts have mostly stood by the First Amendment’s robust protections, receiving an B+/A- grade from Prof. Kosseff.Jeff Kosseff’s biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Jeff Kosseff’s book is Liar in a Crowded Theater.The California statute prohibiting doctors from expressing opinions contrary to official medical policy as concerning vaccines and perhaps other topics was enjoined by the district court in early 2023: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/california-law-aiming-curb-covid-misinformation-blocked-by-judge-2023-01-26/.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

In a recent opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed by noting that one of the grounds supporting the judgment was forfeited…by the respondent.Wait. By the respondent? An appellant must be careful not to forfeit argument, but not the respondent. We discuss, and express gratitude that this one was not published—and thus cannot be cited as precedent.We also discuss:Have a short trial? Volunteer to be timekeeper. Otherwise, your request for a statement of decision may be deemed untimely under the strict rules for trials under 8 hours.Suing for unfair business practices? Double check standing based on “injury in fact,” and consider the conflicting arguments in the majority and dissent in Lagrisola v. North American.Opposing counsel stepping over the line of “zealous advocacy”? Court of Appeal calls out counsel in a recent case, but no sanctions—perhaps because respondent did not file a motion?A strange example of a moot appeal leading to a summary REVERSAL.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:**Can a respondent forfeit issues by failing to brief them? A bizarre opinion says yes. Baltazar v. ACE Parking Mgmt. (D4d1 Oct. 26, 2023 No. D081483) [nonpub. opn.]**Failing to log the length of trial leads to appellate loss. Lewis v. Reptile Factory, LLC (D2d3 Oct. 12, 2023 No. B324197) [nonpub. opn.]Dissent would invalidate loan where lender is unlicensed. Lagrisola v. North American (D4d1 Nov. 3, 2023 No. D080758)**“Bulldozer” advocacy moves dirt but not minds. Tedesco v. White (D4d3 Oct. 27, 2023 No. G061197) [nonpub. opn.]**Where a moot appeal means summary REVERSAL. People v. Pickens (D2d7 Nov. 9, 2023 No. B320704) [nonpub. opn.]Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Trial resulted in a sizable judgment against your client. You know to stay judgment enforcement you have to post a bond, but what, exactly, does that mean? And how do you do it?Enter Dan Huckabay from Court Surety Bond Agency. We sit down with Dan and ask him how we attorneys can be a hero for our clients by knowing a few key things about appellate bonds, such as:Plan ahead: Before judgment is entered, give the client time to set aside collateral for the bond.Manage expectations: Judgment interest in California is a hefty 10%, and the bond premium ranges from a quarter percent to 4%, with most premiums being about 1%.Consider a letter of credit: If the client has a strong relationship, the bank may issue a letter of credit—which avoids the need to tie up collateral.Was the judgment amended to add fees and costs? Instead of getting a new bond, consider a rider or a separate bond.Don’t wait! There’s no deadline to post a bond, but waiting can lead to assets getting seized or liened on.Dan Huckabay’s biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Ep. 46: Time to Collect: Joseph Chora on the Most Important but Least Understood Area of LawVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.