Federal Judiciary

Schwartz v. Lawson (Cal. Ct. App. - July 9, 2008)

By Shaun Martin

For me, mind you. By contrast, for the California Court of Appeal, it was largely error-correction day. Check out, for example, the following two orders, both of which came out today and both of which were issued by Division Three of the Second District.

The first, in Schwartz v. Lawson, says (in its entirety): "On page 19, second sentence of the first full paragraph, the word ?Labow? is inserted after the word ?Respondent? so the sentence reads: Respondent Labow shall recover costs of appeal. [This modification changes the judgment.]" Oops. Apparently there was more than one respondent. Our bad.

The second, issued minutes later, in State Farm v. Superior Court, says (again in its entirety): "On page 15, third sentence of the first full paragraph, the words ?Petitioner is? are changed to ?Petitioners are? so the sentence reads: Petitioners are to bear the costs of this writ proceeding. [This modification changes the judgment.]" Again: Oops. We were definitely having problems with plural parties on June 26th, when we issued both of these opinions. We're having a better July, though. We hope.

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on July 10, 2008 (boomark / email).