CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS
|
California's state court system generally has three tiers, which are: 1) the Supreme Court; 2) Courts of Appeal; and 3) Superior Courts. The Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal are commonly called "appellate" or "appeal" courts. Appellate justices, judges, and lawyers refer to superior courts as the "trial courts." Lay people, meaning you, call any place where judges and lawyers hang out, so to speak, as "court." |
| Since employment and competitive business litigation cases center mostly on resolution of civil disputes [meaning non-criminal cases], the above courts' relationship to the criminal justice system will not be discussed. |
| CALIFORNIA TRIAL COURTS | |
| In California, parties initially go to battle in Superior Courts. Most legal battles are fought in superior court. In legal circles, people refer to the superior court as the "trial court." Note: in other states the trial courts may be called different names such as a District, Circuit, or Supreme court. Additionally, federal trial courts are called "District Courts." Be mindful of court names and don't get them confused. | |
| Generally, in California a dispute in superior court can be designated "limited" or "unlimited" jurisdiction. A case is designated limited jurisdiction if the money or "damages" you are fighting over is $25,000 or less. If the alleged value of a claim is more than $25,000, the case will be designated unlimited jurisdiction. | |
| Bonus Tips: | |
| Whether a case is one of unlimited or limited jurisdiction is governed by rules too numerous to discuss here. The main difference between the designations [unlimited versus limited] is that limited jurisdiction cases are less costly and time consuming to litigate. The logic behind limited jurisdiction rules is that since the amount in controversy is restricted to $25,000 or less, then the litigation process should be streamlined to permit swift and less expensive dispute resolution. | |
| In what way can limited jurisdiction rules cut litigation costs? One way is to limit "discovery" [discovery is a process where after a case is filed parties are permitted to "find out" what the opposition's case is all about]. In limited jurisdiction cases, the law restricts discovery procedures. For example, in any civil case, a party is permitted to obtain sworn pretrial testimony from witnesses or parties [the formal procedure is called a "deposition"]. In limited jurisdiction cases parties are restricted in the number of depositions they may conduct. | |
| Generally, in unlimited jurisdiction cases, the law does not restrict the number of depositions that may be taken. Considering that depositions may cost $1500 daily, and take weeks to complete, one can see that restricting the number of depositions may result in cost and time savings to limited jurisdiction litigants. | |
| Keep in mind that while less costly and time consuming, litigating limited jurisdiction cases has disadvantages. First, if a case is worth more than $25,000, and you win at trial, $25,000 is generally the most you can be awarded. Second, because of restricted discovery procedures, in a limited jurisdiction matter, you may not be able to adequately develop evidence to prove or defend a case. | |
| You should seek the advice of competent counsel [as opposed to a bonehead] to determine whether a case should be filed and designated unlimited or limited jurisdiction. Oh, by the way, generally a plaintiff filing the complaint decides the value of the dispute and its unlimited/limited designation. While subsequent events may permit the filing party or the opposition to change or challenge a designation, generally, there is no procedure for challenging a case designation before complaint filing. In other words, your attorney is not going to walk up to the court filing clerk and suffer questioning about the designation chosen. | |
|
|
|
| CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS | |
| If either party to a dispute is unhappy with a trial court's ruling or the final result received at the trial, they may be able to challenge the result through the Court of Appeals. California has numerous appeals courts [currently 18, divided into geographic "districts" and "divisions"]. Parties usually appeal cases in the district and division within which the trial court was located and where the appealing party initially brought the case. | |
| You can best understand the Court of Appeals function by realizing one thing: they "supervise" Superior courts within their district or division. How does one end up in the Court of Appeals? Basically, parties have to first fight it out in a "lower court." When a party [either the winner, loser or both] feel that the trial judge, jury, luck, fate, God, or Satan rendered a legally flawed result, they may be able to ask the Court of Appeal to correct the perceived error. I say "may" appeal because appealing a bad result is contingent on having a sound legal reasons to appeal and because appealing a case is optional. | |
| Keep in mind that a winning party may appeal a trial court result because, for example, they may be unhappy with some aspect of the trial result. For example, maybe they won some money, but in that party's opinion, not enough. A winning party may also appeal the trial court's reduction of an award or a judge's refusal to let the jury consider certain issues or award certain types of damages. | |
| Here is a link to the Court of Appeals general information pages. You need Adobe or a similar PDF viewer. | |
| Bonus Tips: | |
| Generally, there is NOT an automatic right to appeal in civil cases, a party has to opt [or formally request] to file an appeal in a civil case [don't confuse this with death penalty cases where the news media always mention a condemned defendant's automatic right to appeal a death sentence]. Filing a written notice of appeal is usually required in cases [typically a one-page paper]. If a party fails to timely file such notice, the right to appeal is lost. | |
| Sometimes there is no appealable issue in a case; however, you have probably read or heard about someone losing big in a case at trial. Post-result, you typically hear the losing party or lawyer say "we will appeal," or "obviously we think the jury was wrong and we plan to file an immediate appeal." Sometimes such comments are simply face-saving talk. | |
| Typically, economics may govern whether appeals are pursued. A party may realize that the odds of winning on appeal are slim, but knowing the appeal process can take one to three years, they file so to delay money payments to the winning party. Often times, the losing party will offer the winner substantially less than what was awarded with the "threat" that if the reduced offer is not accepted, an appeal will be taken effectively delaying payment of the award to the winner for a long, long time. | |
| Appeals are expensive procedures. Often times, even though a party might win on appeal, they cannot afford to pay an appellate lawyer to handle the appeal. Sometimes, the amount won or lost is not large enough to justify the cost of appealing the trial court result. In these cases, appeals are typically not pursued. | |
| Before appealing, a party typically has to post a bond with the appeals court [insurance policy] in the amount of the judgment being appealed. If the appealing party loses on appeal, they may have to pay interest during the time the case was on appeal [on the judgment amount]. Additionally, the cost for a lawyer to handle an appeal is quite expensive [$75,000 to $150,000 to appeal uncomplicated matters; where a lot is at stake, appeal costs can run into seven figures]. Someone has to be really mad and have lots of money to file an appeal. | |
| To handle an appeal you should retain a lawyer who specializes in appeals. You can recognize male appellate lawyers by the trademark bow ties they wear. You can also ask your current lawyer if he or she, like us, have handled appellate cases. Sorry, I cannot bring myself to wear a bow tie. | |
| Once an appeal is filed, a Court of Appeal looks at the problem [or "legal issues"] presented by the appealing party and the respondents argue against the points raised by the appellant. If the appeals court agrees that legal errors were made at the trial level, it may rule such legal errors substantial enough to warrant "reversal" of the trial court result [whether it was a verdict, ruling, judgment, etc.] | |
| If the Court of Appeal reverses, it usually "orders" the superior court to correct the problem [in ways too numerous to discuss here]. You may have heard some terms bounced around in the media such as: judge reversed, new trial ordered, writ issued, or appeals court refuses to hear appeal. Often times, after an appeal court issues its ruling, the parties go back to the trial court to redo the erroneous procedure, which may include a new trial, correcting a judgment, or modifying a trial court order. | |
| Let me confuse you a little more by also pointing out to you that the various Courts of Appeal in California do NOT have to follow each other's decisions. Each Court of Appeal district can issue decisions that contradict what other Districts have ruled. For example, an appeals court in San Francisco [First Appellate District] may say "We think the statute means the following . . . " | |
| However, an appeals court in Los Angeles [Second Appellate District] can say: "We are fully aware what the San Francisco appeals court has said, but we think their analysis is wrong and that the statute says . . ." In this scenario, the appeals courts are said to be "in conflict." Trial courts and judges must follow the rulings of the appeal court in its district. When conflicting opinions or rules of law exist, the California Supreme Court may step in to "resolve" the conflicting appeal court opinions. | |
| CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT | |
| So what is the role of the California Supreme Court? Well, in thinking of words to describe their importance, phrases such as "The Big Cheese," "The Head Honcho," and "Godfather," come to mind. Supreme Court justices are the BIG bosses. No court tells the Supreme Court what to do. [except on occasion the U. S. Supreme Court or the Legislature, but we won't discuss that for now]. | |
| Generally, the California Supreme Court looks at what the Courts of Appeal have done [and technically the trial courts] and then the Justices decide if they need to correct or clarify a lower court's decision. The California Supreme Court usually deals with issues it considers important. For example, they resolve conflicts in decisions of the Court of Appeals, matters of important public policy or other significant conflicts. | |
| Supreme Court decisions typically have a trickle down effect on all lower state courts, not just the court that where the case originated [the trial court]. How? Remember, cases typically get their start at the trial court level. From there, a party may appeal to the trial court's boss [the Court of Appeals], and if a party does not like the Court of Appeal's decision, the party may be able to go to the California Supreme Court [the Court of Appeal's boss]. Once the Supreme Court issues a decision, all lower courts must follow the Supreme Court's rulings. If you were a good student in government or political science class, you may recall that this is referred to as following "precedent." | |
| Bonus Tip: | |
| The California Supreme Court has the absolute right to decide whether or not it will review a civil case. How likely is it that the Court will grant a Petition for Review [a "Petition" is the formal document filed with the Supreme Court requesting it review a case]? Well, a Supreme Court Chief Justice once answered my inquiry by pointing out that 5000 Petitions are received annually and less than 100 might be considered for review. Based on those odds your money is better spent at the casino. | |
LINKS
Judicial Council of California - Excellent guide to all courts.
Information about the Federal Courts.
CLICK HERE FOR MAIN INDEX
