SF v. 44Mag (Mag Repair Parts Kits)

[Tincon]

LOL, am I missing an inside joke on this this thread?

So if there was some unreasonable delay in action which prejudiced the defendant then it is possible that the court could deny SF injunctive relief. That would not dispose of the action however, as SF is also asking for some money damages as well. It would take the bite out of it though I think.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

AUG-27-2013 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPLEX LITIGATION DESIGNATION FILED BY DEFENDANT EXILE MACHINE, LLC

Here's a project for someone: what is the procedure by which a case is desginated "complex" and is there a deadline? (ETA: I don't know the answers, just curious.)

[Tincon]

Here's a project for someone: what is the procedure by which a case is desginated "complex" and is there a deadline? (ETA: I don't know the answers, just curious.)

California Rules of Court

Rule 3.400. Definition

(a) Definition

A "complex case" is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.

(b) Factors

In deciding whether an action is a complex case under (a), the court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve:

(1)Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;

(2)Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence;

(3)Management of a large number of separately represented parties;

(4)Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or

(5)Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.

(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(c) Provisional designation

Except as provided in (d), an action is provisionally a complex case if it involves one or more of the following types of claims:

(1)Antitrust or trade regulation claims;

(2)Construction defect claims involving many parties or structures;

(3)Securities claims or investment losses involving many parties;

(4)Environmental or toxic tort claims involving many parties;

(5)Claims involving mass torts;

(6)Claims involving class actions; or

(7)Insurance coverage claims arising out of any of the claims listed in (c)(1) through (c)(6).

(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(d) Court's discretion

Notwithstanding (c), an action is not provisionally complex if the court has significant experience in resolving like claims involving similar facts and the management of those claims has become routine. A court may declare by local rule that certain types of cases are or are not provisionally complex under this subdivision.

Rule 3.402. Complex case counterdesignations

(a) Noncomplex counterdesignation

If a Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010) designating an action as a complex case has been filed and served and the court has not previously declared the action to be a complex case, a defendant may file and serve no later than its first appearance a counter Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010) designating the action as not a complex case. The court must decide, with or without a hearing, whether the action is a complex case within 30 days after the filing of the counterdesignation.

(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective July 1, 2004.)

(b) Complex counterdesignation

A defendant may file and serve no later than its first appearance a counter Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010) designating the action as a complex case. The court must decide, with or without a hearing, whether the action is a complex case within 30 days after the filing of the counterdesignation.

(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective July 1, 2004.)

(c) Joint complex designation

A defendant may join the plaintiff in designating an action as a complex case

I don't really see how this would be a "complex case" but....

[Willport]

Complex Case Designation

Typically the Civil Case Cover Sheet filed by a party will indicate whether that particular party believes a case should be designated as complex. That doesn't mean a whole lot. Typically, a party will request re-designation as part of the initial Case Management Conference, it can be done via stipulation and order, or it can be done via motion. Since SF indicated it wanted a complex designation in its initial Civil Case Cover Sheet, I'm surprised Exile filed a motion, instead of going the stip-and-order route.

Unless it gets a complex designation, the motions will be heard in dept. 301 or 302, the general law and motion departments, and a trial judge won't be assigned until trial.

With a complex designation, the case gets sent to one judge for all purposes. The judge ends up very familiar with the facts and issues before they get called upon to do anything of significance (for example, rule on a summary judgment motion). There are two departments that handle complex cases. Judge Karnow (Schwarzenegger appointee) and Judge Munter (Wilson Appointee). Both judges are not afraid to make decisions, and neither is to be trifled with. Particularly if this ends up in front of Judge Munter, counsel needs to bring their A-game.

[elSquid]

With a complex designation, the case gets sent to one judge for all purposes. The judge ends up very familiar with the facts and issues before they get called upon to do anything of significance (for example, rule on a summary judgment motion). There are two departments that handle complex cases. Judge Karnow (Schwarzenegger appointee) and Judge Munter (Wilson Appointee). Both judges are not afraid to make decisions, and neither is to be trifled with. Particularly if this ends up in front of Judge Munter, counsel needs to bring their A-game.

I did a quick google, and found the following interview with Judge Munter:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202463956682&John_Munter&slreturn=20130728184225

He seems to be not bound by formality, and is focused on results. I found the quote:

I always tell counsel that we can break these cases down to have mini jury trials or mini court trials. My experience has been, in three years in doing complex, I actually have not had a jury trial on any issue at all. The counsel have generally speaking selected the option of having a court determination on these kind of issues.

...quite interesting. I assume that without jury involvement, these cases are resolved much faster?

-- Michael

[Willport]

I did a quick google, and found the following interview with Judge Munter:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202463956682&John_Munter&slreturn=20130728184225

He seems to be not bound by formality, and is focused on results. I found the quote:

I always tell counsel that we can break these cases down to have mini jury trials or mini court trials. My experience has been, in three years in doing complex, I actually have not had a jury trial on any issue at all. The counsel have generally speaking selected the option of having a court determination on these kind of issues.

...quite interesting. I assume that without jury involvement, these cases are resolved much faster?

-- Michael

Keep in mind that 99.99% of cases settle. A numberof these cases are multi-party construction disputes, or construction injury disputes, and fairly unwieldy to try. Most of the 17200/CLRA cases get settled. Once a case goes through a summary judgment/summary adjudication motion, most of the time, the parties can see the writing on the wall, and it will settle. This case is unusual, in that (in the absence of it getting tossed), forcing the defendants out of doing business in California would seem to be the minimum.

[fizux]

Ahh, now that is a Judge people should remember.

Judge Munter presided over the (in)famous Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie trial (on CourtTV right after Judge Lance Ito's OJ trial), affirmed on appeal at 63 Cal. App. 4th 1128 (1998). That spawned the attorney fee dispute case Chambers v. Kay, 29 Cal. 4th 142 (2002), which is in every modern PR casebook for fee splits between lawyers (RPC 2-200). That would be the very same Chambers that represented Artherd when he got arrested for felony "being in two places at once."

Small world, huh? The Weeks case is quite a good read...

[chainsaw]

Thank you for posting this.

In my (not at all humble opinion), the Chambers case is an even better read. It shines a very interesting light on Mr. Chambers (who even has an account here, and has posted on this very forum). If you then read Mr. Chambers other writings in light of this case, the light gets even brighter.

[fizux]

Thank you for posting this.

In my (not at all humble opinion), the Chambers case is an even better read. It shines a very interesting light on Mr. Chambers (who even has an account here, and has posted on this very forum). If you then read Mr. Chambers other writings in light of this case, the light gets even brighter.

Oh, I did not forget reading his post on the prior thread.

Two things to keep in mind are: (1) Rena Weeks agreed to the fee split, but Kay kept the file (and it was back in the day before everything was PDFed and e-mailed), and Chambers could not produce her written consent or introduce her oral agreement; and (2) Kay was a serial RPC 2-200 offender, and subsequently screwed three other attorneys out of multi-million dollar fees in exactly the same manner.

[Libertarian71]

I can't say that I know anyone who has ever one a case by assering a defense of laches.

And I cannot say that I've ever seen an answer where laches was not raised as an affirmative defense.

[chainsaw]

I know this discussion is off-topic regarding this thread (which is about the SF anti repair-kit lawsuit), but it is on-topic regarding gun rights, through the connection of Mr. Chambers you pointed out.

Two things to keep in mind are: (1) Rena Weeks agreed to the fee split, but Kay kept the file (and it was back in the day before everything was PDFed and e-mailed), and Chambers could not produce her written consent or introduce her oral agreement; and (2) Kay was a serial RPC 2-200 offender, and subsequently screwed three other attorneys out of multi-million dollar fees in exactly the same manner.

You seem to be implying that (a) Chambers lost this case because he didn't have access to the "Weeks agreement" document, and (b) that Chambers was "screwed" (quote from your post) out of a fee sharing agreement by Kay.

Based on the record, I disagree.

The supreme court decision reads very different. If the agreement between Weeks and Kay/Chambers existed, it could have been subpoenaed, and introduced as evidence. If no written record remained, Mrs. Weeks would have been available to testify. The case hinges on the fact that no such agreement actually exists. Second, the supreme court disagreed with all of Chambers' arguments that he should be entitled to a share of the fee. In some of their writings, they describe one of Chambers' claim as being dangerously close to fraud, and describe some of his actions as "disturbing". The California supreme court seems to be saying that Chambers was attempting to do the "screwing", after the spectacular award to Weeks and Kay.

Nothing I say above is intended to imply anything about Mr. Kay, neither positive or negative. About Mr. Chambers, the supreme court has said plenty.

[fizux]

I took the bait earlier and strayed OT; my original point was that Judge Munter did a masterful job handling the very complex Weeks trial.

I'll address the unrelated topic via PM or in another thread.

[Sinestr]

Update, Complex designation approved: http://webaccess.sftc.org/minds_asp_...nt.asp?PGCNT=0

[Moonshine]

I'm just glad I do not live in a city that wastes tax payer dollars like this. The law is quite clear, SF has NO CHANCE at winning. The money paid to Exile when they lose is going to be small compared to the salaries of judges and city attoneys that have to be paid to have this dog and pony show.

[jdberger]

I don't really see how this would be a "complex case" but....

But what?