The Los Angeles County Bar Blog

Even High Court Clerks Need a Lunch Break

Starting Monday, December 15, 2008, the Los Angeles Office of the Supreme Court of California will be closed from noon until 1:00 p.m. every day.

This still allows for filings at this office (in the Ronald Reagan building on Spring Street) seven hours a day, i.e., 9:00 a.m. to noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. I actually don't use the L.A. office that often, instead making nearly all of my Supreme Court filings by overnight delivery to the Court's headquarters in San Francisco.

Fridays after Holidays

Christmas and News Year's Day both fall on Thursdays--again raising the "Friday after" question addressed in my earlier Thanksgiving Day post. I'm not aware of any court treating these Fridays as holidays, though one would expect them not to be particularly active days at any court. The Ninth Circuit has helpfully posted the following notice: "IMPORTANT HOLIDAY NOTICE. The public filing windows of the Clerk's offices in San Francisco, Pasadena and Seattle will be closed on Friday, December 26, 2008 and Friday, January 2, 2009. Please note neither of these days is a "legal holiday" as defined by Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(4). If you have a pleading due to be filed on either of these days by statute, rule or court order, or if you have an emergency filing requiring same day or next day action, please contact the Court at (415) 355-8020 and staff will assist you with the filing. Electronic Filing (ECF) will be available as usual."

And the California Supreme Court announces: "Holiday Closure of Los Angeles Office of the Supreme Court of California
December 29, 2008 - January 2, 2009. Filings should be sent by priority or express mail, or by a common carrier--overnight delivery (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.25(b)) to the court's main office at 350 McAllister Street,
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 (415) 865-7000."

Sixth Amendment Bar Fight

In Slovik v. Yates, the Ninth Circuit observes in a footnote:

At oral argument, counsel for both sides indicated that cue balls were thrown. We are fairly confident that not everyone was throwing cue balls, although the record doesn't reveal whether one side was stripes and the other solids.

The defendant, denied the right to confront a witness about a lie told on the stand, was granted a new trial.