 |
| Volume III, Issue 3 |
Newsletter Fall 2010 |
 |
CALIFORNIA COURTS New California Law Creates Voluntary System for Expedited Jury Trials in Civil Cases A bill signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in late September established an innovative alternative to the traditional civil jury trial system in California. The “Expedited Jury Trial Act” creates a voluntary system which allows the parties in a case to opt into utilizing an “expedited jury trial” in place of a traditional full-length trial. Some of the main differences under the new voluntary system include utilizing a jury of eight instead of 12 individuals, and allowing only one hour for jury selection. During the trial itself, plaintiffs and defendants will each be allotted a maximum of three hours for presentation of evidence, and the admission of most evidence will be stipulated to before the trial begins. One of the most significant characteristics of the new system is that it utilizes pretrial “high-low” agreements, which establish minimum and maximum verdict amounts agreed to by the parties in advance. Such agreements remove much of the risk normally associated with trials, and can be especially valuable in cases where alleged damages are more clearly established, but liability is contested. One of the final notable features of the new system is that verdicts are binding, and not subject to post-trial motions or appeal except in very limited circumstances. Though the new system has yet to be proven in California, similar schemes in New York and South Carolina have offered promising results. Experts believe that the expedited jury trial system has the potential to make small to mid-sized cases much more economically feasible for both plaintiffs and defendants by offering a “middle ground” between mediation or arbitration, and a full-length trial. Early estimates indicate that expedited jury trials could reduce trial costs by up to 80%, and initial reports indicate that the expedited jury trial system will help reduce the crowded state court dockets and long delays that have become a central part of the court system in California. PRACTICAL TIP: While it is still too early to determine whether the new expedited jury trial scheme will deliver the anticipated results, the new system could provide a viable cost saving alternative to the traditional jury trial. This could be especially true in cases where liability is contested, but the risk of a large jury verdict and a potential award of significant attorney fees would normally counsel against taking a case to trial. In such cases, the greatly reduced trial expenses and the use of a “high-low” agreement to limit potential risk could make the expedited jury trial an attractive option to all parties involved. |
Employment California Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision Regarding Attorney Fees in Employment Cases. In a highly anticipated case involving attorney fees, the California Supreme Court determined that a trial court is not required to award attorney fees in cases in which plaintiffs obtain very limited success on their Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims. In Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, an LAPD officer was awarded $11,500 in damages for his claims brought against the City, and sought $870,935 in attorney fees. The California Supreme Court determined that because the plaintiff’s FEHA damages award was so small that it could have been recovered in a limited civil case, the trial court had discretion to deny the plaintiff’s “grossly inflated” attorney fees request as being improperly brought as an “unlimited” civil case. PRACTICAL TIP: In many cases, the risk of a substantial attorney fee award leads defendants to settle cases which present what would otherwise be relatively small potential damages awards. In cases where damages are likely limited (below $25,000), Chavez now provides defendants with much greater leverage in negotiating settlements as plaintiffs may not be able to recover attorney fees in these cases. School Law Federal District Court Rules That Suspension of High School Student for YouTube Video Posted Off-Campus Violated Student’s First Amendment Rights. In a recent decision by a Los Angeles federal judge in J.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School Dist., the Court determined that a student’s First Amendment rights were violated when the District suspended the student based on a YouTube video created and posted off-campus. In the video at issue, the plaintiff and her friends filmed a diatribe aimed at a classmate while at a local restaurant, and later uploaded the video to the popular YouTube website from the plaintiff’s home. The online video was brought to the attention of school administrators the following day after the parent of the targeted student complained to the school. After administrators questioned all students involved, the plaintiff was suspended from school. The student then brought suit against the District, claiming that her suspension violated her First Amendment speech rights since the video was made entirely outside of school premises. In response, the District argued that although the video was created outside of school, it caused a disruption on campus that required the school to impose disciplinary actions on the student. After acknowledging that the case presented a unique set of facts, the Court found that the YouTube video did not create a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” on campus, and thus the District violated the student’s First Amendment rights by suspending her for creating and uploading the video. However, the Court determined that because the student’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time, the District was only required to pay “nominal damages” of $1, and school administrators were entitled to qualified immunity and thus were not individually liable to the student. PRACTICAL TIP: As technology and the internet increasingly become a part of students’ lives, public schools will invariably be faced with new and difficult disciplinary issues. Because the law in this area is continuously changing and developing, a school district faced with disciplining a student for off-campus conduct may want to consult an attorney to determine whether the conduct is sufficiently connected to the school that discipline will not violate the student’s rights. |
 Learn more about Lynberg & Watkins, APC at http://www.lynberg.com |
| Disclaimer:The content of this newsletter is for informational purposes only and is not intended to serve as a source for legal advice. Lynberg & Watkins, APC expressly disclaims all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based upon such information or with respect to any errors or omissions in such information. As we are not providing legal advice through this newsletter, information contained herein should not be relied upon for any purpose without seeking legal advice from a duly licensed attorney competent to practice law in your jurisdiction. To contact Lynberg & Watkins, APC please e-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . |