March/April 2013 Across the Bar

Acrossthe
The Official publication of the
San Joaquin County Bar Association
March/April 2013
Immigration:
New Changes in Immigration Law:
The Provisional Waivers are Coming!
Pg. 7
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Available
in Juvenile Dependency, Guardianship and
Family Court Proceedings Pg. 20
Also in This Issue:
The Supreme Court Ponders Whether Monsanto's Patents on
"Roundup Ready" Seeds Survive Resale Pg. 4
2013 New Laws Affecting Civil Practitioners Pg. 11
The San Joaquin County Bar Association
San Joaquin county Bar Association
Board of Governors
20 North Sutter Street, Suite 300
Stockton, CA 95202
(209) 948-0125
Fax: (209) 948-1361
www.sjcbar.org
San Joaquin County Bar Association
Rebekah Burr-Siegel,
Executive Director [email protected]
Melissa Dooley,
CAC [email protected]
Linda Mussat,
CAC Coordinator/ Deputy [email protected]
Jennifer Riggs,
MCLE [email protected]
Fatima Ruelas,
LRS [email protected]
Natalie Vernon,
Communications [email protected]
LRS...............................................LRSRequest@sjcbar.org
Allan Jose....................................President
Michael J. Mulvihill, Jr............... President-Elect
James T. C. Nuss......................... Past President
Lisa Ribeiro.................................Secretary
Mary Aguirre
Kerry Krueger
Michael Belden
Allison Lafferty
Jenny Dennis
David Wellenbrock
Lisa Blanco Jimenez
Moses Zapien
ACROSS THE BAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Michael R. Tener....................... Editor/Chair
Janette Rossell
Fernanda Pereira
Terry Costa Joseph Ferraro
Rebekah Burr-Siegel
Natalie Vernon
To contact us via email - [email protected]
Across the Bar is published bi-monthly by the
SJCBA. Subscription rate is included in
membership dues, or $50 per year for non-members.
Across the Bar welcomes letters and article suggestions
from readers. The SJCBA reserves the right to edit
comments or letters to the editor.
Please send e-mail to [email protected].
Submissions and advertising deadline
1st of the month prior to publication. Submit
your articles to [email protected].
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of
the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of
the San Joaquin County Bar Association. The information contained in this publication is not intended as legal
advice and may not be relied upon as such.
Page 2
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
FCCU for All Your
Financial Needs!
(No Argument!)
As a member of the San Joaquin County Bar Association, you’re
privy to an exclusive benefit—Financial Center Credit Union
membership for you and your staff !
Joaquin, Financial Center is the most trusted credit union in the
Valley. Time and time again, we offer our members the lowest
rates on their loans as well as the safest place to save their money.
In a time when the safety and soundness of funds is at the
forefront of everyone’s minds, Financial Center membership is
the perfect solution for peace-of-mind. Voted Best Of San
Follow your logic and call us today. And don’t forget to pass this
message onto your staff – they (and their wallets!) will thank you.
209-948-6024
•
www.fccuburt.org
Federally insured by the NCUA.
March/April 2013
Across the Bar
Page 3
The Supreme Court Ponders Whether Monsanto's Patents on
"Roundup Ready" Seeds Survive Resale
Joseph Ferraro
The lowly soybean is providing the United
States Supreme Court with the chance to decide how
the patent laws will be applied to self-replicating
technologies of the future.
On February 19, 2013, the Court heard oral
argument in Monsanto Co. v. Bowman,1 an appeal
from a decision of the Federal Circuit that affirmed
a patent infringement judgment against Bowman
arising out of his use of the offspring of Monsanto’s
patented soybeans. The case gives the Court the
opportunity to define the scope of the doctrine of
patent exhaustion as it applies to self-replicating
technologies.
The doctrine of exhaustion provides that when
a patent holder sells a patented article, or one that
cannot be used without practicing the patent, the
purchaser is free to do whatever it wants to do with
the purchased item, without further obligation to the
patentee. The Supreme Court stated the principle
broadly in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics,
Inc.,2 where it said, “[t]he authorized sale of an
article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts
the patent holder’s rights and prevents the patent
holder from invoking patent law to control postsale
use of the article.”
Bowman is the third case—but only the first to
reach the Supreme Court—in which the Federal
Circuit rejected the defense of patent exhaustion
and sustained an infringement judgment obtained
by Monsanto against a farmer who used the progeny
of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® soybeans without
authorization.
Monsanto is the holder of several patents that
cover the making and use of genetically altered
soybeans that are resistant to certain herbicides. By
planting Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® soybeans,
a farmer can spray his fields with glyphosatecontaining herbicides (such as Monsanto’s Roundup)
to kill the weeds without harming the beans.
Subsequent generations of the patented soybeans
retain the glyphosate-resistant trait.
Monsanto markets its patented soybeans through
seed manufacturers and dealers who are prohibited
from reselling the seeds without making the sale
subject to a limited use license that Monsanto calls
Page 4
a “technology agreement.” The limited use license
provides that the soybeans may be used only to plant
a single season commercial crop; that neither the
seeds nor the crop may be supplied by the buyer to
others for planting; that the buyer may not save the
progeny of the licensed seeds for replanting; and
that the seeds may not be used for research or seed
production.
In Monsanto Co. v. McFarling,3 the defendant
had signed Monsanto’s technology agreement, but
had violated it by saving soybeans from his crop and
replanting them in subsequent years. Monsanto sued
for breach of contract and for patent infringement.
The defendant contended that the restrictions in the
technology agreement were unlawful and that, in any
event, the first sale of the patented beans to him had
exhausted Monsanto’s patent rights, leaving him free
to use subsequent generations of the beans without
liability for patent infringement.4
The Federal Circuit rejected these arguments,
making a distinction with respect to the doctrine of
exhaustion between seeds actually purchased from
Monsanto and the progeny of those seeds grown
by the defendant. As the court stated, “[t]he ‘first
sale’ doctrine of exhaustion of the patent right is not
implicated, as the new seeds grown from the original
batch had never been sold…. The original sale of the
seeds did not confer a license to construct new seeds,
and since the new seeds were not sold by the patentee
they entailed no principle of patent exhaustion.”5
In the second case, Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs,6
the defendant purchased seeds from seed companies
but, contrary to Monsanto’s policies, had never been
required to sign the technology agreement. The
District Court held that the doctrine of exhaustion
did not apply because Monsanto had never made an
unrestricted sale and because the second generation
seeds are new articles, not included in the first sale.
The Federal Circuit affirmed, and stated the principle
even more broadly. The court said, “[w]ithout the
actual sale of the second generation seeds to Scruggs,
there can be no patent exhaustion. The fact that a
patented technology can replicate itself does not
give a purchaser the right to use replicated copies of
the technology. Applying the first sale doctrine to
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
The Supreme Court Ponders Whether Monsanto's Patents on
"Roundup Ready" Seeds Survive Resale
Continued
subsequent generations of self-replicating technology
would eviscerate the rights of the patent holder.”7
In Bowman, the defendant purchased
“commodity” soybeans from a local grain elevator.
Because more than 90% of the soybean crop in
Indiana, where Bowman purchased and planted
the seeds, consists of Roundup Ready® soybeans,
the “commodity” soybeans were likely to contain
a substantial percentage of Roundup Ready®
seeds. Bowman planted the beans, successfully
using Roundup for weed control, and saved and
replanted the progeny of the “commodity” beans for
a number of years. It was undisputed that, under
Monsanto’s technology agreement, farmers who
purchase Roundup Ready® seeds are entitled to sell
the crop as a “commodity” to grain elevators. It was
also undisputed that the grain elevators were not
subject to any contractual restrictions on their sale of
“commodity” soybeans.
Bowman argued that, because the sale of
“commodity” beans to him was authorized, the
doctrine of exhaustion applied and permitted him
to use the purchased beans and any crop resulting
from them. The Federal Circuit again sided with
Monsanto, citing the “eviscerate” language from
Scruggs and holding that, “[e]ven if Monsanto’s
patent rights in the commodity seeds are exhausted,
such a conclusion would be of no consequence
because once a grower, like Bowman, plants the
commodity seeds containing Monsanto’s Roundup
Ready® technology and the next generation of seed
develops, the grower has created a newly infringing
article.”8
Although the questions and comments of the
Justices during oral argument cannot be relied upon
to predict how the Supreme Court may rule, the
Court seems to be comfortable with the idea that, if
the exhaustion doctrine applies, it allows the buyer
only to “use” the articles originally sold by the
patentee, and not to “make” subsequent generations.
Yet it is this distinction that gives rise to the Court’s
dilemma, for it ignores what one commentator refers
to as the “elephant in the room.”9 The language
used by the Federal Circuit appears to suggest that,
in the case of self-replicating technologies, the
March/April 2013
lawful “use” of the first generation article inevitably
and necessarily results in the unlawful “making”
of an infringing copy. For a farmer who purchases
soybeans for use as seed, it would be impossible to
use the beans lawfully without unlawfully replicating
them.
It can be argued that, if the doctrine of
exhaustion is restricted in this way, it will be
rendered meaningless in the case of self-replicating
technology. Yet, if the doctrine of exhaustion
permits the purchaser of a first generation article to
replicate it without limit, then the patentee’s rights
will be similarly rendered meaningless. The Court’s
challenge will be to avoid both of these extremes.
1
657 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420
(2012)
2
128 S.Ct. 2109, 2122 (2008)
3
302 F.2d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
4
McFarling relied on “the statement in United States v. Univis
Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 249, 62 S.Ct. 1088, 86 L.Ed. 1408, 53
USPQ 404, 407 (1942), that when a patented product has been
sold the purchaser acquires ‘the right to use and sell it, and ...
the authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in
practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly
with respect to the article sold.’” 302 F.3d at 1298.
5
Id. at 1299.
6
459 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2006).
7
Id. at 1336.
8
Id. at 1348.
9
“But, of course, the application of the use/make a distinction
in the Roundup-Ready cases ignores the elephant in the room:
the only and intended ‘use’ of seeds or any other self-replicating
technology necessarily ‘makes’ a newly infringing article—this
is the defining characteristic of self-replicating technologies.”
Sheff, Jeremy N., Self-Replicating Technologies (December 3,
2012), Stanford Technology Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.
229, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2184589
or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2184589.
Across the Bar
Joseph Ferraro is a lawyer and
mediator who concentrates on business and
commercial litigation, including the litigation and trial of patent disputes. He can be
reached at 209-785-4198 or
[email protected].
Page 5
The San Joaquin County Bar Association
The Criminal Law Section of the San Joaquin County Bar Association Presents
Pretrial Discovery in
Criminal Law Cases:
Obligations & Remedies
Honorable Elizabeth Humphreys
Judge Humphreys continues to sit as an active Judicial Officer for the
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
May 1, 2013
12:15 pm - 1:15 pm
SJCBA
$35.00 Non-SJCBA Members • $25.00 SJCBA Members • $20 Section Members
Lunch is included
The Honorable Elizabeth Humphreys will address the pretrial discovery obligations of Counsel in criminal
law proceedings as well as available remedies for non-compliance with those obligations.
This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one (1) participatory
hour, of which one (1) hour credit will apply to the Criminal Law/Ethics MCLE Requirement.The SJCBA certifies that this activity conforms to the
standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal
education.
Name:____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ____________________________________________ Email: _________________________________________________
Payment by (choose one): Pay at the door ( )
Check ( )
Credit Card ( )
Credit Card No.: ___________________________________Exp.: ____________Signature:________________________________
Please complete this form and return it with your payment to:
San Joaquin County Bar Association, Attention: Jennifer Riggs
20 N. Sutter Street, Suite 300, Stockton, CA 95202; Fax: (209) 948-1361
Register Online at www.sjcbar.org
Page 6
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
New Changes in Immigration Law:
The Provisional Waivers are Coming!
Fernanda M. Pereira
Many changes have taken place in the field of
immigration law recently, from allowing youth
to apply for work permits and deferred action to
procedural modifications that, while affecting only
the immediate relatives of United States citizens,
will make the immigration decision process
more consistent, faster and more efficient, while
allowing families of U.S. citizens to remain together
throughout the process.
The next change is scheduled to be
implemented on March 4, 2013 and is a longawaited modification, not in substantive law but
in procedure. This change creates a “Provisional
Waiver” that will allow foreign-born immediate
relatives of United States citizens to apply for a
waiver of unlawful presence before they depart to
complete their application for lawful permanent
residence at required immigrant visa interviews in
their countries of origin.
Current law requires that foreign-born immediate
relatives of United States citizens, who entered
the United States without a valid entry document,
leave the U.S. in order to complete the immigration
process. However, upon departing the U.S., the
foreign national becomes ineligible to re-enter the
United States for a period of either 3 or 10 years,
depending on how long he has been in the U.S.
undocumented. This is where the Provisional
Waiver will make a difference in the lives of many
families.
The existing process requires that the foreign
national leave the U.S. and travel to their home
country where an interview will take place at
the local U.S. Embassy. The U.S. citizen has
the opportunity to submit a waiver for unlawful
presence for his relative only after an initial denial
based on inadmissibility is issued. With the
Provisional Waiver, this waiver will be submitted
before the applicant departs from the U.S.
The new procedure will allow U.S. Embassies
to be more efficient by diminishing the number
of appointments an applicant will have to attend
to have a final decision on his case, and will
give families more certainty with regards to the
possibility of return to the U.S. of his loved one.
March/April 2013
Under the existing procedure, when an applicant
departs the U.S., there are no guarantees that he will
be able to return to the U.S. within a reasonable
time: if his waiver is denied, the applicant will be
required to be outside of the U.S. for a period of 3
or 10 years. In certain cases, the adjudication of the
waiver alone can take up to 18 months, during which
the applicant must be outside of the country.
There are five basic eligibility requirements
in order to obtain the new Provisional Waiver of
Unlawful Presence:
1. The applicant must be the immediate relative
of a United States citizen. Immediate relative
includes the spouse or child (under the age of 21)
of a U.S. citizen, or the parent of a U.S. citizen 21
years of age or older. It may also include persons
protected under the Child Status Protection Act and
qualified widowers of U.S. citizens;
2. The applicant must be physically present in the
United States when the application is filed and for
biometrics collection;
3. The applicant must be otherwise admissible
to the United States. The provisional waiver
will only waive unlawful presence and no other
inadmissibility issues that may exist, such as
criminal convictions or fraud;
4. Applicants must be awaiting scheduling of
their consular interview as of January 4, 2013 or
later; and
5. Applicants must demonstrate extreme hardship
to a qualifying relative.
The extreme hardship standard remains the
same, and as difficult and tricky to meet as ever,
as extreme hardship for these purposes “is not a
definable term of fixes and inflexible content or
meaning. It necessarily depends upon the facts and
circumstances peculiar to each case.”1 The standard
has been interpreted to mean hardship “unusual or
beyond that which would normally be expected”
upon deportation,2 and the standard met only in
cases where “great actual or prospective injury” to
the qualifying party will occur. There must be an
“extreme impact” on the citizen or lawful permanent
1
Matter of Hwang, 10 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 1964).
Hassan V. INS, 927 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1991).
2
Across the Bar
Page 7
New Changes in Immigration Law:
The Provisional Waivers are Coming!
Continued
resident family member.3
Meeting the extreme hardship standard is a
subjective finding, and this uncertainty caused
additional stress and fear for many families
that were already experiencing very difficult
circumstances. Submitting the waiver prior to
the applicant’s departure from the U.S. will allow
the family to plan how long the person will be
abroad and give some assurances of his return
within a short period of time. Also, having all the
waivers submitted to same location will allow for
consistency in the decision making which until
now was non-existent, and will shorten the period
of separation between the applicant and his United
States citizen family members.
As indicated in the first requirement, this change
will only apply for individuals that are immediate
relatives of United States citizens; all others that
require the submission of a waiver of unlawful
presence, or immediate relatives who have
additional inadmissibility grounds that apply to
them, will need to follow the existing waiver
process.
Having a pending or approved Provisional
Waiver will not provide interim benefits such
as employment authorization, will not provide
lawful status, and will not provide protection from
removal. Above all, the approval of the Provisional
Waiver does not guarantee that an immigrant visa
will be issued or that the applicant will be admitted
to the United States. However, even though the
Provisional Waiver is merely a procedural change
and does not impart any substantive benefits
regarding their immigration status, for eligible
families this change will give them some guidance
on how to plan their future.
While this change is good news for immediate
relatives of U.S. citizens, many individuals will
remain ineligible to apply for lawful permanent
residence despite their close relationship to a U.S.
citizen. Detentions for immigration violations
are more numerous than they have ever been, and
Provisional Waivers do not provide protection
against deportation. Thus, applicants can be in the
process of submitting their Provisional Waiver and
still be removed from the U.S.
In his 2013 State of the Union address, President
Barack Obama said immigration reform is a top
priority; the bipartisan framework for comprehensive
immigration reform seems to indicate that a deep
change in the immigration laws is coming, and
that Congress will act. However, many groups are
concerned that the substantive changes will fall
short of solving many serious issues that make the
transition from undocumented to legal status very
difficult and in some cases practically impossible.
Other groups are concerned that relaxing any of
the existing immigration laws will encourage more
undocumented immigration. It remains to be seen if
anything at all will be done to change the existing
laws.
Fernanda M. Pereira is a partner at
Meath & Pereira, and practices exclusively
in the field of immigration law. She can be
contacted at [email protected]
or at (209) 942-3300.
3
Shooshtary v. INS, 39 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 1994), citing Matter
of Ngai, 19 I&N Dec. 245 (BIA 1984).
Page 8
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
Presents ABA Telebriefing
Developments & Trends in Fiduciary Litigation
Thursday, May 2, 2013
10:00 am - 12:00 pm
(9:30 Continental Breakfast)
Bank of Stockton Trust & Investment Group
240 N. San Joaquin Street
Stockton CA 95202
Skip Fox, partner with McGuireWoods LLP, Charlottesville, VA and Tom Abendroth, partner with
Schiff Hardin LLP in Chicago, IL will discuss issues, developments and trends in fiduciary litigation.
Get your questions answered by these nationally-recognized attorneys during this two-hour, live
telephone briefing.
The topics discussed will help the trust professional recognize new areas of opportunities and
reinforce the use of both common and unique estate planning techniques.
Topics to be discussed include:
• Diversifications
• Concentrated Investments
• Keeping Beneficiaries Informed
• Fiduciary Exception
• State Income Taxes
• Alleged Failure to Make Distributions
To Register: Contact Cherry Chan (209) 929-1517 or [email protected]
no later than Monday, April 29, 2013.
Bank of Stockton does not charge to attend the telebriefing. However, there is a nominal cost
for your credits: $20 for SJCBA Members and $25 for Non-Members.
This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the
amount of two (2) participatory hours, of which two (2) hours credit will apply to the General MCLE Requirement. The
SJCBA certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and
regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.
This briefing has been approved for 2.5 CTFA (FID), 2.0 CPE for CPA credit hours in the field of study: Business Law and
2.0 CFP continuing education credits.
March/April 2013
Across the Bar
Page 9
The Women Lawyers Section
of the San Joaquin County
Bar Association
Cordially Invites You to
The Annual Luncheon
Casa Flores-Marina
3201 West Benjamin Holt Drive
Stockton, California
Thursday, May 2, 2013
11:45 am to 1:00 pm
• A vegetarian option will be offered
• No charge to Section Members
• $15.00 for Non-Members
• or pay $15.00 to join Section
Please RSVP by April 29, 2013 to:
Erin Guy Castillo at [email protected]
Page 10
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
2013 New Laws Affecting Civil Practitioners
Michael R. Tener
Several new laws affecting civil practitioners
have recently gone into effect. While there are too
many new laws to attempt to cover in one article,
eight of the most significant are discussed below.
Except where noted, these laws went into effect on
January 1, 2013.
1. Filing Fees Increased. Fees for filing a first
paper in any unlimited civil action went up by $40
(e.g., fees to file a complaint or answer are now
$435). (Gov. Code § 70602.6.) Uniform fees for
filing motions, applications, or other papers requiring a hearing (e.g., orders to show cause) and filings
under the Probate Code rose from $40 to $60. (Gov.
Code §§ 70617, 70657, 70677.) Additionally, a $50
fee was established for delivering a will to the court
under Probate Code section 8200 (Gov. Code sec.
70626(d)). An additional $30 fee was established
for court reporter services in civil proceedings lasting under an hour. (Gov. Code § 68086(a)(1)(A).)
Complex case filing fees also increased. (Gov. Code
§ 70616.)
The fees to file a notice of appeal or a petition for
writ within the original jurisdiction of a court of appeal have increased from $485 to $605. (Gov. Code
§ 68926.) Fees for filing documents in the Supreme
Court have increased as well. (Gov. Code §§ 68926,
68927.)
2. Nonrefundable Jury Fees Required from
Each Side, not Each Party, Demanding Jury
Trial. Code of Civil Procedure section 631(b) was
modified effective September 17, 2012 to provide
“[a]t least one party demanding a jury on each side”
of a civil case must pay the nonrefundable $150 jury
fee to avoid waiver of a jury trial. This section clarifies that if there are multiple parties on a side, only
one of them need pay the $150 fee to avoid waiver.
3. Depositions Limited to Seven Hours. Code
of Civil Procedure section 2025.290 was added,
limiting the deposition examination of a witness
by all counsel to seven hours’ total testimony. The
seven-hour limitation does not apply: (1) where the
court orders otherwise; (2) where the parties stipulate otherwise; (3) to an expert witness deposition;
(4) to a person-most-qualified deposition; (5) in a
complex case, except that two seven-hour days of
March/April 2013
testimony are permitted upon a doctor’s certification
of a substantial medical doubt that the deponent will
live another six months; (6) in a case brought by an
employee against an employer for “acts or omissions
arising out of or relating to the employment relationship;” or (7) to a party that appeared in the action
after the deposition had concluded. The court “shall”
allow additional time “if needed to fairly examine
the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or
any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.”
4. Statute Amended to Require Privilege Log
“If Necessary” When Objecting Based on Privilege or Work Product. Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.240 was amended pursuant to a bill introduced by former Assemblywoman Alyson Huber
to require that any objection to discovery based on
privilege or work product provide “sufficient factual
information for other parties to evaluate the merits
of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege
log.” The statute does not specify the contents of the
privilege log but states that the requirement is meant
to codify the concept as that term is used in case law
and is not intended to constitute a substantive change
in the law.
5. Timing for Notice of Intent to Move for New
Trial. A party intending to move for a new trial must
file and serve a notice of that intention after the decision is rendered and before entry of the judgment,
or within the earlier of (1) fifteen days after service
by the court or another party of notice of entry of the
judgment or (2) 180 days after entry of the judgment.
Once the first notice of intention to move for a new
trial is filed, all other parties have 15 days to file and
serve one of their own. (C.C.P. § 659.)
6. Sixty-day Limitation on Court’s Jurisdiction to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment. Code of
Civil Procedure section 663a was amended to provide that a court loses the power to rule on a motion
to set aside and vacate a judgment 60 days after the
court or a party serves notice of entry of the judgment. If no such notice is given, then the court’s
power to rule on a motion terminates 60 days after
the first notice of intention to move to set aside or
vacate the judgment is filed.
Across the Bar
Page 11
New Laws for 2013
Continued
7. Debtor’s Exemptions in Bankruptcy Cases
Increased. Exemptions available pursuant to section 703.140 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
debtors filing for bankruptcy protection in California increased effective April 1, 2013. (See Judicial
Council form preceding C.C.P. § 703.010 for current
exemption values.)
8. Exemption from Wage Garnishment Increased. Effective July 1, 2013, the maximum
wages subject to levy under an earnings withholding
order shall not exceed the lesser of twenty-five percent of the individual’s disposable earnings for that
week or the individual’s disposable earnings for that
week in excess of 40 times the state hourly minimum
wage. (C.C.P. § 706.050.)
The foregoing discussion derives in large part
from the 2013 Summary of Court-Related Legislation produced by the Judicial Council. The full
summary, which contains additional details on much
of the legislation discussed above and many other
Page 12
new laws including those affecting criminal, probate,
juvenile, and family law practices, can be found at
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2012_LegSummary.pdf.
Across the Bar
Michael R. Tener is an attorney
with Neumiller & Beardslee in Stockton
practicing civil and bankruptcy litigation.
Contact Michael at (209)948-8200 or
[email protected].
March/April 2013
The San Joaquin County Bar Association
The LPM&T Section of the San Joaquin County Bar Association Presents
BYOD:
(Bring Your Own Device)
How to Better Use Your
Smartphone or Tablet
Brown Bag
May 7, 2013
12:00 Noon
Neumiller & Beardslee
509 W. Weber Avenue, 5th Floor
Stockton, CA
FREE to LPM&T Section Members • Non-Members can join for $15.00
Bring your smartphone and/or tablet for an informative but relaxed question and answer discussion with
LPM&T Section Members and technology professional Jeff Gilbert of Verve Networks. Come prepared
with a question about how to better utilize your device, to show others what you have found to help use
your device in your practice, or just to learn from others. Not a LPM&T Section Member? Come to the
Brown Bag and join the Section. Section membership costs only $15 per year. For more information
about the Section contact the Section Chair Nathan McGuire at [email protected]. To join the
Section please visit www.sjcbar.org or just come to the Brown Bag! Bring your own lunch.
Name:____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ____________________________________________ Email: _________________________________________________
Payment by (choose one): Pay at the door ( )
Check ( )
Credit Card ( )
VISA ( ) M/C ( ) AmEx ( ) Credit Card No.: ______________________________________________Exp.: __________________
Signature:_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please complete this form and return it with your payment to:
San Joaquin County Bar Association, Attention: Jennifer Riggs
20 N. Sutter Street, Suite 300, Stockton, CA 95202; Fax: (209) 948-1361
Register Online at www.sjcbar.org
March/April 2013
Across the Bar
Page 13
President's Message
Allan Jose
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of
times…”
This famous opening line raced through my mind
when I took office as the president of the San
Joaquin County Bar Association’s Board of
Governors in January of this year. Although it is
with a tremendous amount of pride and honor that I
serve as a member and officer of our bar
association, I am also aware that it is a tenuous time
for the residents of our county and the members of
our legal community.
The fiscal crisis that started five years ago
continues to plague California, its counties, and
millions of residents. Its effects resonate in all
aspects of state, county, and city life. One of the
hardest hit sectors of our state is the courts. Over
the last five years, our state’s courts have been
subjected to budget cuts that have seen hundreds of
court houses closed, hundreds of courtrooms
shuttered, and thousands of court personnel laid off.
And this says nothing of the thousands of
Californians who are deprived of access to the
courts. Many counties, including San Joaquin, have
closed courthouses in outlying areas in order to
concentrate their resources. Californians are
subjected to long lines – many waiting for hours for
services – because there are less staff to help
members of the public file their documents or
answer their questions.
But amidst these dire times I am thankful for the
continued dedication and service of our county’s
legal community. Despite the challenges of this
economy, many of our lawyers and
paraprofessionals continue to dedicate their time and
knowledge to our bar association’s causes.
Programs such as the upcoming Law Day, the annual
New Lawyers Reception, the Free Legal Clinic, and
the numerous community outreach programs would
not be possible without the support of professionals
who volunteer their time to make a difference in our
community.
And this dedication extends to the non-lawyers in
our community, as well. The clerks and
administrators of our legal system – the backbone of
Page 14
our judicial administration – continue to provide
services despite layoffs and reduced office hours.
And countless other individuals continue to
volunteer their time selflessly to ensure that residents
of our county benefit from the experience of our legal
professionals and have access to our courts.
In the upcoming months, I look forward to
meeting with many of our community members and
participating in events that benefit not only our legal
community but our county as a whole. Because
although it may seem like difficult times still lay
ahead, I know I can always count on the spirit and
generosity of our legal professionals to support our
county and its residents.
Across the Bar
Allan F. Jose is the current President
of the San Joaquin County Bar
Association and practices mostly criminal
defense.
Contact Allan at (209) 948-2369 or
[email protected].
March/April 2013
The San Joaquin County
Bar Association
together with
The San Joaquin County
Bar foundation
present
Law Day Luncheon 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
11:45 am - 1:15 pm
Stockton Golf & Country Club
3800 Country Club Blvd
Stockton CA
Check-in: 11:45 am - 12:00 pm
Luncheon and Program: 1:15 pm
Please join us as we honor the
2013 Law Day Award Recipient:
San Joaquin County District Attorney
James P. Willett
Tickets: $40 per person, until May 9, 2013
$50 per person, May 10 - May 14, 2013
This is a ticketless event.
Reservations may be purchased by calling (209) 948-0125,
visiting our website: www.sjcbar.org or
mailing a check along with your name(s) and menu selection(s) to:
SJCBA: 20 N. Sutter Street, Suite 300, Stockton, CA 95202
Please RSVP with your paid reservation
and lunch option by Thursday, May 9, 2013
March/April 2013
Across the Bar
Page 15
New Lawyers Reception Recap
February 2013
The Bank of Stockton hosted a reception on February 6, 2013 honoring the newest members of the San
Joaquin County legal profession. Twelve attorneys who had passed the California State Bar Exam
gathered with more than 100 community members, family, veteran lawyers and judges in the expansive
Bank of Stockton headquarters on Miner Avenue in Stockton.
The keynote speaker for the evening was Francis J. Mootz III, Dean of the McGeorge School of Law,
University of the Pacific.
From Top: The 2013 New Lawyers with SJCBA President Allan Jose and Keynote Speaker Francis J.
Mootz, III. Middle row from left: Keynote Speaker Francis J. Mootz, III; Thomas Keeling and SJCBA
President Allan Jose; Daniel Fargo, Vice President of Bank of Stockton. Bottom row from left: Judge
David P. Warner and Ann Baird; Judge Carter P. Holly, Dale Balcao and Robert Fay; Kristine Eagle and Dan
Quinn.
Page 16
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
The San Joaquin County Bar Association
The Paralegal Committee of the San Joaquin County Bar Association Presents
The Dos and Don’ts of Bankruptcy
Loris Bakken
Loris Bakken has been practicing law in the Central Valley since 2001. Her practice
areas include bankruptcy, business law, family law, personal injury, and mediation.
Ms. Bakken has represented Chapter 7 Trustees for almost three years. She
represents several bankruptcy trustees from all over the Eastern District. Ms.
Bakken is also a certified mediator. She is a graduate of the prestigious Straus
Institute for Dispute Resolution and is on the panel of mediators for the San Joaquin
County Superior Court. Ms. Bakken also has experience as a mediator of family law
matters and has received specific training and education in this area. Ms. Bakken is
a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute and a member of the San Joaquin
County Bar Association, Family Law, Women Lawyers, and Business Sections. Ms.
Bakken is an associate at The Suntag Law Firm.
May 15, 2013
12:15 pm - 1:15 pm
SJCBA
$35.00 Non-SJCBA Members • $30.00 SJCBA Members
Common mistakes that petition filers make. More and more people are seeking legal representation to
assist them in filing for bankruptcy. This presentation examines the necessary information to include in
the bankruptcy petition and schedules and the common mistakes that petition preparers make in
collecting information and preparing the documents for filing.
This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one (1) participatory
hour, of which one (1) hour credit will apply to the General MCLE Requirement.The SJCBA certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.
Name:____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ____________________________________________ Email: _________________________________________________
Payment by (choose one): Pay at the door ( )
Check ( )
Credit Card ( )
VISA ( ) M/C ( ) AmEx ( ) Credit Card No.: ______________________________________________Exp.: __________________
Signature:_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please complete this form and return it with your payment to:
San Joaquin County Bar Association, Attention: Jennifer Riggs
20 N. Sutter Street, Suite 300, Stockton, CA 95202; Fax: (209) 948-1361
Register Online at www.sjcbar.org
March/April 2013
Across the Bar
Page 17
San Joaquin County trial lawyerS aSSoCiation
Chapter of the Consumer attorneys of California
San Joaquin County trial lawyerS aSSoCiation
Masters seMinar
anatoMy oF a spinal injury case
co - sponsors
Friday • May 17, 2013
Valley Brew Restaurant
157 West Adams Street, Stockton, CA 95204
(209) 464-2739
pRogRam 12:00-1:30 pm
mcle
1.5 geneRal
11:45 AM RegIStRAtION
RegistRation includes
Lunch • Seminar Materials • MCLe Certificate
Moderator: lawRence m. knapp
Law Office of Lawrence M. Knapp
CO-CHAIRS:
Lawrence M. Knapp and David B. Walker
COMMIttee:
Brian S. Kabateck, Lisa Maki,
Brent Bixby, Davey turner, Nancy Drabble,
Lori Sarracino, Wendy Murphy
Speaker:
This program has been approved for minimum continuing legal education
credit by the State Bar of california in the amount 1.5 General credits.
cAoc certifies this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar
of california governing minimum continuing legal education. cAoc will
maintain your records on this seminar. Provider #00324.
seminaR pRe-RegistRation fees aRe good
thRough 5/14/13. After this date, add $5 to the below fees.
Registration includes appetizers, syllabus, and CLe certificate.
 $50 Attorney/CAOC Member ($55 after May 14)
 $60 Attorney/Non Member ($65 after May 14)
 $40 paralegal/Legal Assistant ($45 after May 14)
 $35 Add’l paralegal/Legal Asst. ($40 after May 14)
 $10 Law Students ($15 after May 14)
 Free - Current Sitting judges and justices
method of payment:


Check enclosed. Check #_______________
Charge my credit card:
 MC
 Visa
12:00 pM pROgRAM
lawRance a. Bohm
Bohm Law Group
1:30 pM ADjOuRNMeNt
CAOC reserves the right to substitute speakers and/or topics.
pRe-RegistRation
please pRint cleaRly oR type:
CAOC#_________________________State Bar#_______________________
Name___________________________________________________________
Firm____________________________________________________________
Address_________________________________________________________
City____________________________________St______Zip______________
email___________________________________________________________
 Amex
Card No.______________________________________________
exp___________Signature_______________________________
RetuRn this foRm to:
CAOC, 770 L St., Ste. 1200, Sacramento, CA 95814
phone: (916) 442-6902 • Fax: (916) 442-7734
ph:(_____)______________________Fx:(_____)________________________

CAOC has permission to communicate with me by fax and email.
Refund Policy: Refunds will be honored only if a written request is submitted to cAoc at least
seven days prior to the date of the seminar and will be subject to a $25 service charge. Registration
substitutions may be made only when the substituting party holds the same membership category
as the original registrant.
wB
call caoc to RegisteR (916) 442-6902
Page 18
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
The San Joaquin County Bar Association
The LPM&T Section of the San Joaquin County Bar Association Presents
The Law Practice Technology Series:
Using Video Conference Technology in your Law Practice
This Program is a Webinar
May 22, 2013
12:15 pm - 1:15 pm
Facetime, Skype, ooVoo, Webex. Whether you have a smartphone, tablet,
laptop, computer or server farm, learn how you can use inexpensive and
readily available video conference technologies to make your law practice more
efficient and productive. Whether it is getting more face time with clients,
expanding your reach, interviewing witnesses, taking depositions, or making
court appearances, this webinar will get you on your way. And the best part is,
you don’t need to be tech savvy to do it. This webinar will also cover
confidentiality, encryption and security issues as they relate to one’s practice.
With Speakers Joy Heath Rush
Joy is a frequent author and presenter on legal technology issues. She is the past President of the International Technology
Association (ILTA), an organization on a mission to provide information to maximize the value of technology in the legal
profession. She is also the Director of Enterprise Multimedia Services for a global law firm with 1700 attorneys in 18 offices.
She is responsible for the firmwide audiovisual, presentation, collaboration and videoconferencing technologies. Among
other awards, Joy was named ILTA’s 2011 Communications Technologies Champion and 2008 IT Champion of the year by
Law Technology News magazine.
and Tom Spalding
Tom Spalding is a communication technology consultant with Red Tonka who helps users identify their communication
needs and apply technology solutions. He has consulted on dozens of federal courtrooms and worked with large and small
law firms to implement videoconferencing solutions in 6 countries.
Generously Hosted by Neumiller & Beardslee
Webinar access ifnormation will be provided uopn regsitration.
$15.00 LPM&T Section Members • $25.00 SJCBA Members • $40 Non-SJCBA Members
This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one (1) participatory
hour, of which one (1) hour credit will apply to the General MCLE Requirement.The SJCBA certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for
approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.
Register Online at www.sjcbar.org
March/April 2013
Across the Bar
Page 19
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Available in Juvenile
Dependency, Guardianship and Family Court Proceedings
Janette L. Rossell
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”) is a
special green card program whose purpose is to help
foreign children in the United States that have been
abused, abandoned or neglected.1 Children who obtain green cards through the SIJS program can live
and work permanently in the United States.
SIJS is only available to unmarried aliens under
the age of twenty-one. 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c). A
request for an order making the necessary limited
factual findings will enable the juvenile to petition the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“CIS” – formerly “INS”) for Special Immigrant
Juvenile Status pursuant to Section 101(a)(27)(J) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The
relevant provision of the INA is codified at 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(27)(J).
The Code of Federal Regulations sets forth the
standard for implementing the statute at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.11. Please note that the regulations do not
yet reflect the December 2008 statutory changes
Congress made to SIJS via the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
of 2008 (“TVPRA”), Pub. L. No. 110-457, § 235,
122 Stat. 5044, 5079-80.
To be eligible to apply to CIS for SIJS, a juvenile
or state court must first make several factual findings. Under the law, these courts do not make any
immigration decisions, but rather, make factual findings concerning the juvenile. The juvenile or state
courts—and not CIS—make these findings because
these are the courts with expertise in juvenile matters. The required findings are as follows:
1. The child is dependent upon the juvenile court
or has been legally committed to, or placed under
the custody of, an agency or department of a state, or
an individual or entity appointed by a state or juvenile court, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)
(27)(J) (again, note that the accompanying regulations found at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.21 (a) and (d)(2)(i) do
not reflect the 2008 statutory amendments);
2. The child’s reunification with one or both
parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment or similar basis found under state law within
1
See http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis.
Page 20
the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) (again,
the accompanying regulations found at 8 C.F.R. §§
204.21 (a) and (d)(2)(i) do not reflect the 2008 statutory amendments); and
3. It is not in the “best interest” of the child to
be returned to her or her parents’ previous country
of nationality or country of last habitual residence
within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J) and
8 C.F.R. § 204.11(d)(2)(iii).
A. Juvenile Dependent upon the Court
Immigration regulations define the term “juvenile
court” as “a court located in the United States having
jurisdiction under State law to make judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles.” 8
C.F.R. § 204.11(a). California Superior Courts do no
split jurisdiction between different courts. Williams
v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.2d 656, 662-663 (1939)
(holding that jurisdiction is vested in all California
superior courts concurrently and “not in any particular judge or department thereof,” such that any one
department may assume jurisdiction over a case that
could also properly be heard in another department).
Because California Superior Court judges have
concurrent jurisdiction, any Superior Court judge has
jurisdiction to hear SIJS petitions.
The California Legislature provides the Superior
Court with authority to make “any orders regarding
the physical or legal custody” of children which the
court determines to be in the “best interest” of the
child. See Family Code § 3020(a). This authority
is granted to facilitate the public policy of this State
to “assure the health, safety and welfare of children.” Id. The Court, “[m]ay, during the pendency
of a proceeding or at any time thereafter, make an
order for the custody of a child during minority that
seems necessary or proper.” Cal. Fam. Code § 3022.
Therefore, if the court places the juvenile within the
custody of an individual it appoints, then the juvenile
meets the first threshold for SIJS eligibility.
Prior to the TVPRA amendments to the INA, an
undocumented minor alien only qualified for SIJS
if the minor was “declared dependent on a juvenile
court located in the United States” or was “legally
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
Continued
committed to, or placed under the custody of, an
agency or department of a State.” Pub.L.No. 105119, § 113, 111 Stat. 2440, 2460 (1997). After the
INA amendments, an undocumented minor now
qualifies for SIJS if the minor has been placed under
the custody of a juvenile- or state court-appointed
individual. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(27)(J)(i). Accordingly, the juvenile need not be dependent on the
court or legally committed to or under the custody of
the State of California in order to satisfy the requirements or this finding.
B. Reunification with Parent Not Viable
Prior to the TVPRA, the INA based eligibility
for SIJS on a determination that a child was eligible
for “long-term foster care due to abuse, neglect, or
abandonment.” Pub.L.No. 105-119, § 113, 111 Stat.
2440, 2460-61 (1997); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(a).
The TVPRA removed any reference to long-term
foster care from the INA. The amendments also
extended SIJS to immigrant minors who have been
abused by one, but not both, biological parents.
Now, an immigrant minor can qualify for SIJS if “reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant’s parents
is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or
a similar basis found under State law.” 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(7)(J)(i).
Although any California Superior Court has authority to issue SIJS factual findings, the California
family courts are uniquely situated to help children
pursue SIJS after the TVPRA expanded the categories of children who qualify for relief. The TVPRA
amendments leave open the possibility that a child
can remain in the custody of one viable, supportive
biological parent, even though the child should not
be reunified with the other parent. In such an instance, the child is not eligible for long-term foster
care or a guardianship, the traditional mechanisms
through which a child pursued SIJS eligibility findings prior to the TVPA amendments. Rather, the
child is limited to pursuing custody arrangements
through the family court, making the family court the
only available forum for SIJS eligibility findings. In
recognition of this unique position, the family courts
March/April 2013
in San Francisco and Los Angeles County have
already granted orders making the factual findings
required for minors to petition CIS for SIJS.
C. Return to Country of Nationality Not in Best
Interest of Juvenile
To address the issue of whether or not a juvenile
should be returned to their country of nationality, the
INA’s Special Immigrant Juvenile provisions were
specifically drafted to take advantage of such state
court expertise in determining issues of child welfare
and children’s best interests. See Gao v. Jenifer, 185
F.3d 548, 555-556 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that state
courts may exercise jurisdiction over juveniles in
INS custody and recognizing that “the INA specifically delegates determinations of dependency . . . and
the best interest of the child to state juvenile court”).
Thus, California family courts have unique expertise
to offer in the context of determining eligibility for
SIJS.
Indeed, the California Family Code instructs
family courts to specifically address questions of the
best interests of children. See Fam. Code § 3011
(instructing courts to consider a history of abuse in
evaluating the best interests of children); Fam. Code
§ 3020 (declaring “the health safety, and welfare of
children” should be the court’s “[p]rimary concern
in determining the best interest of children when
making any orders regarding the physical or legal
custody or visitation of children”); see also Manela v.
Superior Court, 177 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1150 (2009)
(holding that the court’s “primary” concern for the
best interests of a child outweigh a parent’s privacy
interest in personal medical records when the court
decides whether that parent should have legal custody of the child); In re Marriage of Stoker, 65 Cal.
App.3d 878, 882 (1977) (holding that a trial court
commits reversible error when it makes a custody
decision based on any consideration other than the
best interest of the child, such as the equitable doctrine of unclean hands).
Thus, the Court must weigh all available evidence
that addresses the best interests of the juvenile when
determining if the juvenile should be returned to her
Across the Bar
Page 21
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
Continued
country of origin.
D. Factual Findings Not Grant of Immigration
Relief – only Prerequisite
Factual findings by the juvenile or state court will
not entitle the juvenile to SIJS or to lawful permanent residence in the United States. Rather, the
court’s findings are a prerequisite to filing a petition
for immigration relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(d)
(2). Without the requested court order, the juvenile
cannot petition CIS for SIJS. Id. The juvenile must
submit the order to CIS as part of her petition for
SIJS. Based on that SIJS petition, the juvenile can
also submit an application for lawful permanent residency. CIS ultimately will adjudicate the juvenile’s
petition and application at an adjustment of status
interview. CIS thus retains the discretionary authority to approve or to deny the petition for SIJS and
application for permanent residence.
Janette Rossell is an attorney
with the Rossell Law Office in Stockton
handling juvenile delinquency (defense)
and minor's counsel (guardianships).
Contact Janette at (209) 473-1811.
Place Your Ad Here!
Advertise Your
Business to the
Local Legal
Community
and Beyond
Contact Natalie Vernon at the SJCBA for more information
[email protected]
Page 22
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
Bar Calendar & Member Announcements
April 2013
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
1
2
LPM&T Ex Comm
3
9
Family Law Ex Comm
Cesar Chavez
Holiday
Courts Closed
LRS & SJCBA Open
8
Probate, Trusts, &
estate Planning
Ex Comm
MCLE Comm
15
16
22
Program Comm
29
30
Board of
Governors Ex Comm
Criminal Peer Review
Of Counsel/Emeritus
10
Barristers Ex Comm
Paralegal Ex Comm
17
Civil Lit Ex Comm
CAC Comm
MCLE: An
introduction to
Minor’s Counsel
23
24
Legal Clinic-Stockton
Thursday
Friday
Humphreys Student
Bar Gala
4
5
11
12
18
19
25
26
Women Lawyers
Ex Comm
Criminal Law Ex Comm
Judicial Liaison
Foundation Ex Comm
Unless otherwise indicated, all meetings start at 12 noon and are held at the SJCBA office.
Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson
is pleased to announce that Jamie M. Ryker has
become an associate with the firm.
Jamie is a 2005 graduate of the University of California, San Diego,
with a B.A. in Political Science. Jamie received her J.D. in 2009, cum
laude, from the University of California, Hastings College of Law.
Jamie is admitted to the California Bar,
the U.S. District Court, Northern and
Eastern Districts, and is a member of
the State Bar of California as well as
the San Joaquin County Bar Association.
New SJCBA Members
• Ms. Dolly D. Ares
• Ms. Ann K. Craig
• Ms. Francoise C. Espinoza
• Ms. Anna Y. Maples
• Mr. Jesse Ortiz
• Ms. Michelle C. Pomicpic
• Ms. Kim Rodriguez
• Ms. Jamie M. Ryker
• Mr. Elias Salas Jr.
• Mr. Paul E. Schultz
• Ms. Mary L. Swanson
• Ms. Parveen K. Tumber
March/April 2013
Across the Bar
Page 23
Bar Calendar & Member Announcements
May 2013
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
ABA Telebriefing:
1
Criminal Law MCLE
Pretrial Discovery in
Criminal Law Cases
6
Board of
Governors Ex Comm
7
LPM&T Brown Bag
BYOD: Bring Your Own
Device
At Neumiller & Beardslee
13
20
21
27
Memorial Day
Holiday
Courts, LRS & SJCBA
Closed
Family Law Section w/
Bench
14
15
Paralegal MCLE:
The Dos and Don’ts of
Bankruptcy
22
Barristers Ex Comm
28
10
16
17
23
24
30
31
Board of Governors
CA State Bar MCLE:
Big Firm Services on
Small Firm Budget
Legal Clinic-Stockton
Foundation Ex Comm
29
Family Law MCLE:
The Evidence Code is
Alive and Well in
Family Court
Program Comm
9
LPM&T MCLE:
Videoconferencing
Webinar
Legal Clinic-Tracy
3
Criminal Law Ex Comm
Civil Lit Ex Comm
CAC Comm
2
Casa Flores Marina
Paralegal Ex Comm
Law Day Luncheon
Stockton Golf &
Country Club
Law Day Educational
Program
8
LRS Comm
Women Lawyers
Annual Luncheon
Developments & Trends
in Fiduciary Litigation
LPM&T Ex Comm
Probate, Trusts, &
estate Planning
Ex Comm
Friday
ATB Comm
Unless otherwise indicated, all meetings start at 12 noon and are held at the SJCBA office.
Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry &
Christopherson is proud to
announce that Kerry L. Krueger has
become a partner in the firm.
Kerry joined Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry &
Christopherson in September 2006, after completion
of her J.D. (with Distinction) at the University of the
Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Her undergraduate
studies were completed at Western Washington
University, earning a B.A. in 1985 and then continuing
her education at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio,
earning an M.S. in 1988.
She is a member of the State Bar of California and
the San Joaquin County Bar Association, where she
serves on the Board of Governors and is active in the
Page 24
Women Lawyers Section. Kerry is also an active member
of the Consuelo Callahan Inn of Court. She serves as a
Trustee of the Board of the Haggin Museum and as a
Director on the Board of Delta Health Care. She is an
active Rotarian and teaches Higher Education and the Law
at the University of the Pacific.
Across the Bar
March/April 2013
Classified
Ruhl Building - Reduced Price
Cort Tower Office Space Available
523 East Main Street, Stockton, CA 95202
• Three excellent ground floor suites available with
new building facade
• Property Type: Office or Retail
• Rental Rate: $0.75 psf negotiable (+PG&E)
• Suites 521 - 2,432 sf
• Suites 523 & 527 - 2,000 sf
• Directly across from the San Joaquin Superior
Court Family Law Courthouse
343 E. Main Street, Stockton, CA 95202
For More Information Please Contact
Mahala Burns, Broker (209) 235-5231
• 10 story classic office tower
• National Historic Landmark with all modern
amenities
• Rental Rate: $.95 psf (+PG&E)
• Two high-speed elevators
• Secure code access entry
• Free use of Executive Conference Room for tenants
For More Information Please Contact
Mahala Burns, Broker (209) 235-5231
[email protected] • www.cortco.com
[email protected] • www.cortco.com
Missing Will
Looking for the will of Nancy Browning. Ms.
Browing passed away on March 18, 2013. She
lived at 1225 Country Club Blvd in Stockton, CA.
Please contact Richard Young at (209) 474-0196
if you have any informaion.
March/April 2013
Across the Bar
Page 25
Classified
Elks Building
Kress Building - 3rd Floor
42 N. Sutter Street, Stockton, CA 95202
• Office space available
• Single office to full floor
• Newly renovated offices
• Lease Rate: starting at $.50 psf
• Tenant pays PG&E and janitorial
• Professional tenant mix
• Located in the Central Parking District
• Walking distance to business/government offices
and restaurants
20 N. Sutter Street, Stockton, CA 95202
• 952 Square Feet
• Single office to full floor
• Tenant pays PG&E and janitorial
• Located in the Central Parking District
• Walking distance to business/government offices
and restaurants
For More Information Please Contact
For More Information Please Contact
Mahala Burns, Broker (209) 235-5231
[email protected] • www.cortco.com
Mahala Burns, Broker (209) 235-5231
[email protected] • www.cortco.com
Page 26
Across the Bar
March/April 2013