|
|
|
|
CALIFORNIA CIVIL COURT PROCEDURE A SUMMARY FOR THE LAYMAN Copyright Terran T. Steinhart 1999 All Rights Reserved
Trial / Post-Trial Motions / Appeal
A civil action (also known as lawsuit) is a proceeding in a court of justice prosecuted by one party against another for the declaration, enforcement or protection of a right, or the redress or prevention of a wrong. The party (person or entity) that commences and prosecutes the lawsuit is the plaintiff; the party against whom the action is prosectued is the defendant. There may be more than one plaintiff or defendant. In the lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, the defendant is permitted to bring a cross-action against the plaintiff if the defendant has a claim against the plaintiff; and is permitted to bring a cross-action against third parties if the defendant has a claim against them arising out of the transaction or occurrence that gave rise to the plaintiff's lawsuit. Civil actions are based upon causes of action (also known as claims). Their are three major categories of causes of action or claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) torts (wrongful conduct causing injury to person or property) such as negligence, fraud, defamation, unfair competition, etc.; (3) statutory claims, such as anti-trust violations, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, etc. They are two major categories of judicial relief: legal and equitable. Legal relief is monetary compensation (also known as damages) awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant for the personal and/or economic injury caused by the defendant's wrongful conduct. Equitable relief (which includes injunctions) is a court order requiring the defendant to do or to refrain from doing a specified act, such as: an order requiring the defendant to transfer title to a parcel of real estate to the plaintiff; or an order requiring the defendant to cease playing loud music at 3:00 a.m., etc. A party to a lawsuit has a right to require a jury trial as to any claim upon which legal relief is sought. However, there is no right to a jury trial when only equitable relief is sought; in such cases, the matter is tried by the court (i.e, the judge) sitting without a jury. In all states, there are both state and federal trial courts. California trial courts: C Small Claims Court: Jurisdiction of lawsuits where the amount in controversy does not exceed than $5,000. This is an informal court, with no formal rules of procedure or evidence, in which the parties represent themselves, as attorneys are not allowed to practice in this court. C Superior Court: Jurisdiction of lawsuits where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000.Federal trial courts: United States District Court: Jurisdiction of lawsuits which involve: (1) claims that arises under the federal constitution, treaties or laws (federal question jurisdiction); and (2) a dispute between citizens or different states or citizens of a state and a foreign county, and where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction). Concurrent and exclusive jurisdiction: State and federal trial courts both have authority (i.e., concurrent jurisdiction) to hear diversity jurisdiction matters. They also both have authority to hear federal question jurisdiction matters, except in those cases in which federal law gives exclusive jurisdiction to the United States District Courts, including bankruptcy, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, maritime and admiralty matters. A civil action or lawsuit is commenced by the plaintiff=s filing of a Complaint in the appropriate state or federal trial court. A Complaint is a court document that contains a statement of the facts setting forth the one or more causes of action or claims upon which the plaintiff alleges he is entitled to legal and/or equitable relief against the defendant. Each type of cause of action has its own established factual elements. For instance, in a cause of action for breach of contract, the Complaint must set forth facts which allege that: (1) the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract; (2) the plaintiff performed all conditions on his part under the contract; (3) the defendant breached the contract by failing to perform his obligations; and (4) the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the defendant=s breach. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the plaintiff has the trial court issue a Summons, which is a one page document that advises the defendant that he has been sued by the plaintiff, and that he must file a written response within a specified number of days. In order to give the court in which the Complaint is filed personal jurisdiction to render orders against the defendant, the plaintiff must serve a copy of the Complaint and Summons on the defendant. The defendant must then file with the court in which the action is pending a written response to the Complaint within the number of days specified in the Summons, or be subject to having a judgment rendered against him be default. The response time is 30 days in California courts and 20 days in federal courts. The customary response filed by the defendant is an Answer, which is a court document in which the defendant admits or denies the various factual allegations set forth in the Complaint. The defendant=s denial of one or more material allegations of the Complaint constitute a defense to the Complaint. The defendant may also include in the Answer one or more affirmative defense, which are allegations of fact that show that even if all of the allegations of the Complaint were true, the defendant nonetheless has a complete or partial defense to the Complaint, such as, for example: (1) the plaintiff=s claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) in an automobile accident case, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in causing the accident; or (3) in a case alleging breach of contract to sell a parcel of real property, that the contract was oral, when the law requires it to be in writing. Instead of filing an Answer, the defendant may file a motion to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can legally be granted. See Pretial Motions, below. A motion is a formal request by a party to a lawsuit that the court grant a particular type of relief. There are many types of pretrial motions that are included within law and motion practice, too numerous to discuss in this limited summary. The two most dramatic are those in which one of the parties seeks to terminate the case without a trial on the merits: (1) the defendant=s motion to dismiss for failure of the Complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (2) motion for summary judgment by either the plaintiff or defendant. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is based on the premises that assuming for the sake of argument that all of the facts alleged in the Complaint are true, it does not legally entitle the plaintiff to relief. It may be made when the Complaint fails to allege all of the factual elements essential to state the particular cause of action upon which the plaintiff is proceeding; or even if it states all of the necessary allegations, the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, or is subject to some other dispositive defense, such as it is based on an oral contract when a written contract is required. A motion for summary judgment is based on the premise that there is no need to conduct a trial on the merits because: (1) there are no material issues of fact in dispute that are required to be resolved at trial, and (2) the legal consequence of the undisputed facts is such that the party making the motion, either the plaintiff or defendant, is entitled to a judgment in his favor. This motion is generally made after the parties have conducted discovery and accumulated the evidence necessary to establish the factual elements of their particular claim or defense. See Discovery, below. In this motion, the moving party files affidavits (written statements made under penalty of perjury) setting forth the evidence he contends proves his claim (if he is the plaintiff), or that proves his defense (if he is the defendant). The party opposing the motion files counter affidavits setting forth evidence that contradicts one or more of the facts essential to the proof of the moving party=s claim or defense. If the opposing party=s affidavits are unable to satisfactorily counter the moving party's affidavit evidence, the court grants a summary judgment in favor of the moving party. Discovery is the pre-trial process by which each side to the lawsuit can discover and gather relevant information and evidence in preparation for trial. Such information and evidence can be obtained from the opposing party as well as from non-parties to the action. There are six methods by which a party may obtain discovery:
The purpose of a trial is to submit the evidence on disputed issues of fact to the trier of fact (the judge or the jury) in order to allow the trier of fact to find which facts are true, and render a verdict accordingly. The parties must prove their claims and defenses by presenting evidence by the sworn testimony of witnesses, the introduction of documents and other items of physical evidence, and evidence introduced for purposes of example and demonstration, such as a video tape recreation of an automobile accident. Each side is entitled to subpoena witnesses to testify at trial. A trial subpoena is a court order that is personally served on a prospective witness, and requires the witness to appear and testify at trial. The plaintiff has the burden of proving his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the overall convincing proof of his evidence must outweigh that presented by the defendant. The plaintiff presents the evidence in support of his claim first; then the defendant presents his evidence. The plaintiff is entitled to present evidence to rebut the defendant=s evidence, and the defendant in turn can present evidence to rebut the plaintiff's rebuttal evidence. After both sides conclude the presentation of their evidence, the trier of fact renders its findings of fact on disputed issues, which are contained in its verdict. On any claim in which a party seeks legal relief (i.e., monetary compensation), either party is entitled to a jury trial as to all triable issues of fact. If neither party affirmatively demands a trial by jury, the case is tried to the trial court judge sitting without a jury. The court judge is usually referred to as Athe court.@ On any claim in which a party seeks equitable relief, neither party is entitled to a jury trial; the triable issues of fact are tried by the court sitting without a jury. The primary function of the judge in a trial is to act in the capacity of a referee, having the obligation to insure that both sides receive a fair trial in accordance with the rules of judicial procedure. He fulfills this duty by making procedural rulings during the course of the trial. He rules on trial motions made by the parties; rules on the admission or exclusion of evidence offered during the trial; and if the case is tried to a jury, rules on what instructions of law will be given to the jury to guide its deliberations. In those cases which are tried to the court sitting without a jury, in addition to his referee function, the trial judge serves as the trier of fact. After the verdict of the jury of the court sitting without a jury is rendered, the matter is far from concluded at the trial court level. The losing party may attack the verdict in the trial court in various ways, the two most prevalent being (1) a motion for new trial and (2) a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Motion for New Trial: There are several grounds upon which the trial court may grant this motion, including: (1) misconduct by the court, jury or adverse party; (2) accident or surprise unexpectedly injuring a party; (3) newly discovered evidence which could not have been previously discovered; (4) a prejudicially erroneous ruling by the court during the course of the trial; or (5) the verdict is contrary to law. There are two additional grounds that are often surprising to laymen, since they permit the trial judge to overturn the verdict of the jury if he concludes that it is clearly erroneous: C A showing that the damages awarded were excessive or inadequate: if after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences, that the clearly should have reached a different verdict on the issue of damages. In this situation, the trial court often gives the plaintiff a choice between retrying the case to a new jury, or agreeing to a court-specified reduction in the amount of damages awarded.C The evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict: In this situation, the trial court must weigh the evidence, including evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and inferences to be drawn from the evidence, and determine whether in his opinion the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict. In performing this responsibility, it is said that the court sits as a Athirteenth jury.@Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict: This motion may be granted when it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there was no substantial evidence to support the verdict, that is, a reasonable jury simply could not have reached such a result on the evidence presented. Appellate court review of the result of a case in the trial court is available in both state and federal courts. Appellate review is not a retrial of the case in the appellate court. There is no testimony nor other evidence received in the appellate court. The appellate court does not review whether or not the verdict of the trier of fact at trial is correct. This is so because the trier of fact has first hand observation of the witnesses testifying, and thereby is best suited to judge their credibility. The appellate court judges have only a typewritten transcript of the trial testimony. Thus, they do not disturb the findings of fact made by the trier of fact at the trial where the credibility of the evidence is involved in the findings. Rather, the responsibility of the appellate court is to ascertain whether the party who lost the trial received a fair trial in accordance with the rules of judicial procedure. To fulfill this obligation, the appellate court: (1) reviews the legal correctness of the rulings made by the trial judge during the trial; and (2) in a small percentage of appeals, rules upon whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the trier of fact. If the appellate court concludes that the trial court committed error in one or more rulings during the trial, it will reverse the trial court only if it also determines that the error was prejudicial, that is, had a significant effect in bringing about the judgment adverse to the appealing party. The appellate court will also reverse the trial court when it concludes that from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. This basis of reversal is not the appellate court's second guessing the credibility determinations contained in the verdict. It is simply a conclusion that viewing all decisions of credibility most favorable to the verdict, no reasonable trier of fact could have reached that verdict upon the evidence presented. California appellate review courts From Small Claims Court: A losing defendant only, not a losing plaintiff, has the right to require the matter to be retried in the Superior Court. In the retrial, the parties are permitted to be represented by attorneys. From Superior Court: There are two levels of appellate review: (1) California District Court of Appeal; and (2) California Supreme Court. The losing party in the Superior Court has the right to appellate review by the Court of Appeal. There is no right to appellate review by the California Supreme Court. The losing party in the Court of Appeal may petition the Supreme Court for review; the Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to grant the petition and review the matter. Federal appellate review courts From United States District Court: There are two levels of appellate review: (1) United States Circuit Court of Appeals; and (2) United States Supreme Court. The losing party in the District Court has the right to appellate review by the Court of Appeals. There is no right to appellate review by the United States Supreme Court. The losing party in the Court of Appeals may petition the Supreme Court for review; the Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to grant the petition and review the matter.
|
|
|
