June 2016 Issue - North County Bar Association

NORTH COUNTY
Lawyer
PUBLICATION OF THE
VOL. 33, NO. 6
www.northcountybar.org
JUNE 2016
Lawyer
NORTH COUNTY
Cover
Oceanside
Published by the
North County Bar Association
(760) 758-5833 * Fax (760) 758-3979
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.northcountybar.org
249 S. Indiana Ave., 2nd Floor; Vista, CA 92084
P.O. Box 2381 Vista, CA 92085
NCBA
Mary Silva, Executive Director
P.O. Box 2381; Vista, CA 92085
© 2016 North County Bar Association
Our mission is to promote professional excellence,
camaraderie, philanthropy and community outreach
Board of Directors:
Joseph L. Stine, President
Robert Daniels, Vice President/ Treasurer
Amber Crothall Vice President/ Secretary
Debra Lewis, Vice President
Katie Anderson, Vice President
Marian Birge, Director
Melissa Bustarde, Director
Gregory Lievers, Director
Wm. Lionel Halsey, Director
Thomas Penfield, Director
Ikuko Sano, Director
Silvina Tondini, Director
William Wolfe, Director
Staff:
Mary Silva, Executive Director
Rosemary Contreras, Membership Coordinator
Magazine
Co-Editors: Wayne Templin, Vik Chaudhry,
Audrey Powers Thornton, and Caron Woodward
Editorial Committee:
Deborah Bayus
Vik Chaudhry
Brenda Geiger
Bill Kamenjarin
Hon. David Moon
Thomas Penfield
Mary Silva
Dennis Stubblefield
Wayne Templin
Audrey Thornton
Caron Woodward
The North County Lawyer Magazine is published monthly by the
North County Bar Association. Subscriptions, articles, photos and
advertising should be submitted to: NCBA, P. O. Box 2381, Vista,
CA 92085 or [email protected], or (760) 758-5833.
The subscription rate for non-members is $40 per year.
Deadline for submissions is the 1st of the month prior to publication.
The North County Lawyer reserves the right to edit all
submissions.
2
CONTENTS
Letter from the Editors
3
President's Perspective
4
Director Spotlight
6
Denials of Requests For Admissions
Are Not Admissible
At Trial – Gonsalves v. Li. 8
#Crimpro10
12
May Dinner Photos
14
Appellate Notes
17
Classifieds
26
27
June Bench/Bar Dinner
28
Business Brief
MCLE Calendar
2016 SUSTAINING MEMBERS
To be a "Gold" or "Silver" Sustaining Member, a member
pays the regular dues for the appropriate category, plus
an additional $250 or $100 per year. These members
are recognized with a certificate, and a list of Sustaining
Members is published each month in the North County Lawyer
Newsletter and on the bar's web page.
Gold
Silver
Anthony Abbott
Lesly Jeanne
Adams
Marian Birge
Wentzelee Botha
William Brown
Robert Daniels
James Dicks
Laura Farris
Russell Gold
Karen Heffron
Michael Klein
Kevin Kravets
Richard Layon
Chrisine Mueller
Thomas Penfield
Joseph Stine
Debra Leffler
Streeter
Herbert Weston
Michael Whitton
William Wolfe
Katie Anderson
Bradley Bartlett
Richard Boyer
Debra Caligiuri
Paul Campo
Mark Chambers
John Crawford
Michael
Friedrichs
Andrea Gherini
Spencer Gurena
Richard Hyatt
Bruce Jaques, Jr.
Russell Kohn
Catharine
Kroger-Diamond
Constance Larsen
Richard Layon
Gregory Lievers
Richard Macgurn
Debra Morse
Kathleen Norris
Marcel
Radomile
Garth O. Reid
Kelly Reid
Charles
Richmond
Daniel Rose
Jacqueline Skay
D. Elisabeth
Silva
Wayne Templin
Silvina Tondini
Kurt Weiser
Deborah Zoller
North County Lawyer
Letter From The Editors
By Vik Chaudhry, Wayne Templin, Audrey Powers Thornton, and Caron Woodward
T
he end of the school year has always felt like the official start to summer for me. Where I grew
up in Maryland, that usually occurred at the beginning of June, making the month a symbol of
freedom and fun. June reminds us to celebrate Father's Day (June 19), Summer Solstice
(June 20), and of course, National Columnists Day (June 23).
We always appreciate our regular monthly columns and their columnists. Mike Ritter of Clear
Sky Law Group writes about some emerging issues in Cell Site Lease Agreements, which could potentially affect any one of our clients. Eric Ganci enlightens us with the latest developments in criminal law.
Audrey Powers Thornton has proficiently provided some observations from several cases argued at the
Supreme Court this term, for which we await opinions. This month also features an noteworthy discussion on the effect of denials to Requests for Admission, as used at trial, by James D. Crosby.
This month's magazine also spotlights NCBA Director Lionel Halsey, and the wonderful volunteer attorneys and paralegals who made the annual Law Day free legal clinic a success.
As a regular summertime feature, we like to present book reviews from our community, so when
you kick back on the beach, don't forget to send us your thoughts on your newest read, to share with our
readers. If you are looking for some musical entertainment, the Carlsbad Concerts in the Park are back
this year, and the inaugural show is at Stagecoach Community Park on June 24. And, of course, I hope
to see you at the Bench Bar Reception at The Crossings on June 16, a much-anticipated yearly event to
honor the esteemed members of our judiciary, the Attorney of the Year, and more.
Caron Woodward
Do You Need to Refer a Client,
but don’t know who to call...
760-758-4755
Sponsored by the North County Bar Association
www.lawreferral.org
June 2016
3
SAVE THE DATE
NCBA Special Event
Summer is on its way! Please mark your
calendar for the Saturday, July 23, 2016
Family Beach Picnic Celebration!
** Hamburgers, hot dogs and
condiments will be provided!
**We will have lots of family
activities including beach flags,
sand castle judging, beach soccer, a pinata,
sand crab hunting, a stunt kite demonstration,
ring toss, and more!
**It's the social event of the summer!
We are looking forward to seeing you
and your families there.
Further details to follow
visit www.northcountybar.org
BANKRUPTCY AND CREDITOR HARASSMENT
BANKRUPTCY
CREDITOR HARASSMENT
• $100Startsmostcases
• W
eSueBillCollectors,Insideand
OutsideofBankruptcy
• O
ver25,000Consumer
BankruptciesFiled
DOANLAWFIRM,LLP
CALIFORNIA’S LARGEST FAMILY LAW FIRM
"EXPERIENCE,REPUTATION,ANDAGGRESSIVE
REPRESENTATIONATAFFORDABLEFEES"
ReferralFeesPaidin
AccordancewithRule2-200
DOANLAW.COM
2850PIOPICODRIVE
SUITED
CARLSBAD,CA92008
PHONE:(760)450-3333
FAX:(760)720-6082
4
• ImmediatelyStopAllCreditorHarassment
• Chapter7DischargeGuarantee
• CreditCardDefense
• ForeclosureReliefThruChapter13
• FDCPA,FCRA,RFDCPA,TCPACLAIMS
• MortgageRemovalThruChapter13
• DebtSettlement
• M
ichaelDoanisaCertified
BankruptcySpecialist
-ConsumerBankruptcyLaw
-AmericanBoardofCertification
“SAN DIEGO COUNTY'S LARGEST BANKRUPTCY CASE FILING FIRM”
5OfficesThroughoutSanDiegoCounty
320EASTSECOND
AVENUE,SUITE108
ESCONDIDO,CA92025
PHONE:(760)746-4476
FAX:(760)746-4436
8250LAMESABLVD
SUITE300-G
LAMESA,CA91941
PHONE:(619)462-4611
FAX:(619)819-4427
185WESTFSTREET
SUITE100
SANDIEGO,CA92101
PHONE:(619)234-3626
FAX:(760)720-6082
333HSTREET
SUITE5000
CHULAVISTA,CA91910
PHONE:(619)500-6535
FAX:(619)797-0772
North County Lawyer
President's
Perspective
I
n June we begin our transition to the slower,
more reflective summer season. A time for
good family outings with youngsters out of
school. A time for transitions with many older students
graduating from school and entering a new phase on
their life’s journey. It is also time for some special R
& R, whether a “staycation” here in the San Diego area
or a vacation to distant lands, foreign or domestic. We
give ourselves a refreshing break from our personal and
professional routines.
Through the years, I have learned that summer
is the wrong time to try to inspire friends and colleagues
to join me on an exciting new project. It does not work
– there are too many distractions as people kick back
and recharge for the fall. The season is about relaxing
and enjoying life rather than embarking on an endeavor
needing a “buy-in” from others. Perhaps Gershwin best
captured the mood of summer in his memorable line
from the musical Porgy & Bess: “Summertime and the
livin’ is easy.”
In the summer, your North County Bar also
slows down a bit without going into sleep mode. We
continue to offer a variety of programs for educational,
professional, and social enrichment. The June schedule
is highlighted by our June 16 Bench & Bar Reception, a
traditional event honoring those who have made special
contributions to our profession here in North County. It
provides an excellent opportunity to socialize and network with members of the local Bench and Bar.
Nevertheless, this summer the larger world
around us promises to be anything but quiet and uneventful. The GOP is on the verge of nominating for president
a controversial businessman who has both touched and
alienated millions of people. In the Democratic Party,
the presumed nominee would be first female presidential candidate of a major party if she can beat back an
unexpectedly vigorous challenge from a socialist senator
elected to Congress as an independent. In this presiden-
June 2016
tial election year, populism has taken center stage while
government experience is viewed as an establishment
taint by angry voters seeking fresh leadership.
In August, when many of us tire of political
rhetoric, we can watch the summer Olympics from Brazil. Much worry and uncertainty shadow these games.
There are concerns about the possible impact of the
spread of the zika virus in South America as well as over
the ongoing political instability in the fragile Brazilian
democracy. There also are indications that certain countries may employ elaborate schemes to mask the detection of illegal performance enhancing drugs in order to
give their athletes a competitive edge.
Enjoy this month’s entry into a summer which
may be quieter for us individually but very eventful in
the world that surrounds us.
Joseph L. Stine
5
DIRECTOR SPOTLIGHT
By Wm. Lionel Halsey, Esq.
I
t is my pleasure to serve the North County Bar
Association (NCBA) as a Director and the Chairman for the Personal Injury Section. The NCBA
warmly welcomed me and greatly assisted me in
developing my practice when I started in North County.
I am a North County native, but I lived all over
the world as a child. I was born on Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base; both my parents were Marine JAGs. I
attended a Japanese preschool in Iwakuni, Japan. I lived in
East Berlin, before the wall came down. I lived in Northern
Virginia and Northern California as well. In 1995, I graduated Rancho Buena Vista High School, where I was male
athlete of the year.
I earned my BA in Business Accounting from California State University of Bakersfield (CSUB). While at
CSUB, I wrestled for their Division I wrestling team, placing in the Pac 10 (now Pac 12) all four years and qualifying
three times for the NCAAs National Tournament. I finished
my CSUB wrestling career as team captain, and proudly, I
am listed in CSUB’s Top Ten for all-time career wins and
pins.
I returned to San Diego County for law school and
in 2003, graduated with Honors from California Western
School of Law, my parents’ alma matter. My dad tells me,
in the old days, when he was a law student, he rolled wrestling mats out on the top floor of the law school for his
wrestling practices. The top floor was a student break area
when I attended. While in law school, I met my wife, Aimee, who is an attorney, then practicing with my Dad.
After law school, I started practicing with my wife
and father in Oceanside. It was an educational experience
in that my father thought the best way for me to learn was to
put me in the court room. There wasn’t any “hand holding,”
as one might expect. I heard, “I can’t believe your dad sent
you on this case” on more than one occasion. After my first
year of practice my son, Tyler, was born, and I reevaluated
my career. While working for my father was educational
and probably prepared me for anything I might encounter
in the future, the long hours were limiting my family time
and at the end of the day, the stress was coming home.
I took several months off and applied to different jobs,
all the while trying to determine the best career path for
my family and me. Ultimately, Aimee and I decided to
start our own office.
Since 2005, Aimee and I have had our own law
practice focusing on personal injury. Our office has always been located in Oceanside, on El Camino Real,
North of Hwy 78, and now I work with my father on
his personal injury cases as well. We have been very
fortunate in that Aimee and I have more of a job sharing
type relationship in that she comes into the office part
of the day on Thursdays and Fridays, and I spend that
time with our children. Our second child, Keira, was
born in 2007. When the kids were younger and out of
school earlier, Friday was always, “Daddy Day.” After
homework now, our children swim 5 days a week and
compete in Judo. The nature of our law practice allows
one of us to be with them for their sports and homework. Having our own office and a shared law practice
has provided the freedom and flexibility for Aimee to be
home with our children.
When I am not working or volunteering with
the NCBA, I spend time with my family and I enjoy
fishing. Additionally, I am a second degree black belt
in Judo and assist with the children’s and family classes
at the Japanese American Cultural Center in Vista.
6
North County Lawyer
June 2016 7
Denials of Requests For Admissions
Are Not Admissible
At Trial – Gonsalves v. Li.
by James D. Crosby, Esq.
Henderson, Caverly, Pum & Charney LLP
I
n a case of first impression, the First District
Court of Appeal in Gonsalvez v. Li (Cal.
App. 1st Dist. 2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1406
held that denials or qualified denials of requests for
admissions (RFAs) are not admissible evidence “in an
ordinary case, i.e., a case where a party’s litigation
conduct is not directly at issue.”
In this auto accident case brought by an injured passenger against the driver, Plaintiff propounded RFAs requesting defendant to admit, among other
things, that he was driving too fast for the conditions
at the time of the accident and that his pressure on
the gas pedal was a substantial factor in the accident.
Defendant responded with standard denials for lack of
information and belief. Plaintiff’s counsel asked defendant on the stand to confirm his RFA responses and
that they were made under oath. He then questioned
Defendant, over objections, about his qualified denials of the RFAs. At the conclusion of the testimony,
the court, again over objection, admitted the RFAs
and responses.
In closing, Plaintiff’s counsel urged the jury
to look at the RFAs and the responses, and then cleverly argued they showed that Defendant, through “a
bunch of double talk” (i.e., the lawyer-drafted qualified denials for lack of information and belief), was
failing to take responsibility for his actions. The closing argument passage quoted in the opinion is very
clever and was likely quite compelling to the jury.
I encourage you to look at … the Requests
for Admissions that we sent to Ran Li asking him to admit some very basic facts about
this crash. His responses are there as well.
Let’s just look at a few of them…. [¶] … [¶]
This is a simple question, ladies and gentle-
men. ‘How much did you push on the accelerator.’
[His response] is a bunch of double speak[,] … a
bunch of ‘I’m sorry I’m not taking responsibility
and not only am I doing it, I’m doing it in a way
that makes no sense.’ [¶] … [¶] … [I]t’s been more
than four and a half years since this crash, and he
will not in any way take any responsibility for it….
And that’s why we need to impanel a jury like you.
Good stuff! The jury apparently thought so, too. The
jury found that defendant Li was negligent, that Plaintiff
Gonsalves was not comparatively negligent, and awarded
Plaintiff more than $1.2 million in damages for significant
back injuries.
Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in
permitting Plaintiff’s counsel to examine Defendant on his
negative responses to RFAs and admitting those responses
into evidence. The First District Court of Appeal agreed, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court
for new trial.
8
Continued on page 18
North County Lawyer
2015 Fragomen San Diego No County Bar - 2nd Proof.pdf 1 10/1/2015 10:14:14 PM
STREET MEDIATION
•
41 years civil litigation experience
•
21+ years of arbitration and
mediation experience
in all areas of civil litigation
• Judge pro tem, Special
Master & Discovery Referee,
San Diego Superior Court
• Follow up conferences are part
of the job description
James W. Street
June 2016 (760) 634-8231
[email protected]
www.streetmediation.com
9
#crimpro
By Eric P. Ganci, Esq.
Is A Felony Conviction Of Carrying A Concealed Firearm In A Vehicle A Crime Of Moral Turpitude?
It’s a new issue, and the answer is yes. From
the March 22, 2016 decision People v. Aguilar, 245 Cal.
App.4th 1010, this conviction of Penal Code section
25400(a)(1) was used to impeach Defendant as a crime
of moral turpitude. “Whether a particular conviction involves moral turpitude is a question of law for the court
to resolve” and the Court here agreed with the Prosecution this case was similar to People v. Robinson (2005) 37
Cal.4th 592 which held “a misdemeanor conviction for
carrying a concealed weapon on one's person is a crime
of moral turpitude.”
For civil practitioners, this case adds another
ground for impeachment based on a criminal conviction
involving moral turpitude.
Admission Of Witness’s Former Testimony Without
Finding Of Constitutional Unavailability Violates
Confrontation.
The People used the videotaped testimony of a
witness, Song, taken at a conditional examination conducted during the retrial of defendant Foy. Was the use of
the video testimony of the witness a violation of Foy’s 6th
Amendment right to Confrontation? The appellate court
said “Yes.” People v. Foy (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 328.
Before the second trial, Foy opposed the People's
motion to admit Song's conditional examination testimony. Foy argued the People had failed to show Song's
unavailability under the Sixth Amendment standard. The
People maintained Song's examination testimony was admissible without a showing of due diligence under section 1345 and People v. Thompson (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th
1269, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 267 (Thompson ). (Id. at 339.)
One main issue is whether the People exercised
due diligence in trying to procure Song. The People
knew 4 months before the retrial that Defendant would
challenge Song’s video’d testimony. The Appellate Court
decided the People “made reasonable efforts to locate
Song[,]” but “once they located her…the People did not
demonstrate good faith efforts to procure Song's attendance at trial.” Song was in Connecticut, “she expressed
her reluctance” to testify, and the People served her with a
subpoena. Song didn’t attend, and the problem here was
the People then didn’t use the “Uniform Act, which had
been adopted by both Connecticut and California, to compel her attendance.”
Regarding the Uniform Act and quoting People v.
Blackwood, (1983) 138 Cal.App.3d 939, 947: “Although
the prosecution tracked down its missing witness and offered to pay his expenses in returning to California to testify it failed to make any attempt to use the [Uniform Act]
to obtain a subpoena for compelling his return. Where the
prosecution knows of the witness's location and procedures exist to bring the witness to court, [Evidence Code]
section 240, subdivision (a)(5) requires those procedures
be employed. Since the prosecution did not do so it was
error for the trial court to permit the reading of [the witness's] prior testimony at appellant's trial, and that error
was of constitutional dimension." (Id. at 349.)
The People claimed there was not enough time to
employ the Uniform Act after locating Song one week before trial, and that Song would undergo undue hardship.
The Appellate Court disagreed: "[o]nly if it in fact becomes
impossible to secure the process, has the prosecution sus-
10
North County Lawyer
tained its burden." (Id at 350.) Nor could the prosecutor
simply assume that Song's vague work and school obligations would demonstrate undue hardship.” Again, citing
Blackwood, ["[t]he prosecution's duty was to invoke the
[Uniform Act], not to decide whether such action would
be fruitful." (Id. at 350.)
The Fund
Debra Leffler Streeter, Chair
Members:
The Appellate Court held the use of Song’s video violates the Confrontation Clause because Song was
critical to the People’s case as the strongest link to guilt.
Unless the record shows beyond a reasonable doubt Defendant was not prejudiced, reversal is required. The Appellate Court decided Foy was prejudiced.
Mary Cataldo
Dawn Hall Cunneen
Judge David Moon, Jr. (Retired)
Mary Silva
To donate, please call the bar office at
760.758.5833
Eric P. Ganci, DUI Trial Lawyer
GANCI, ESQ., APC
Cell: 760-216-4941 * Fax: 888-241-5887
Email: [email protected]
4
The number of CaseyGerry attorneys who
are Past-Presidents of diversity bar organizations
Wendy Behan, Lawyers Club of San Diego & California Women Lawyers
Melissa Deleon, Filipino American Lawyers of San Diego
Srinivas Hanumadass, South Asian Bar Association of San Diego
Angela Jae Chun, Korean American Bar Association of San Diego
Dedicated to the Pursuit of Justice since 1947
SERIOUS PERSONAL INJURY, MARITIME, AVIATION, PRODUCT LIABILITY, CLASS ACTION, MASS TORTS AND PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION
San Diego | North County | 619-238-1811 | caseygerry.com
June 2016 11
Business In Brief
Option Contracts and Rights of First Refusal in Cell Site Lease Agreements
By Mike Ritter, Esq.
W
ireless networks continue to expand and improve, attempting to match insatiable consumer demand for faster connections using
various smart devices. Hundreds of thousands of cell sites currently exist in the United States and
more continue to be added each year. Property owners
are approached by big wireless companies and offered
long-term lease agreements which may be unfamiliar to
the owners and their attorneys.
The wireless company tenants tend to offer a
lease to the property owner, using a template lease agreement containing terms mostly favorable to the tenant.
Two important components present in most lease agreement are the option contract and the tenant’s right of first
refusal. Both accomplish significant strategic goals for
the tenant and should be carefully considered by landlords and attorneys who represent them.
The tenant in a wireless lease agreement often
seeks an option for a period of two years from the date
of execution. In exchange, the landlord is paid consideration usually in the form of a flat fee. This effectively
locks in the lease terms and lease space for the term of
the option or until the tenant exercises its option. Wireless tenants use this as a way to manage resources and
budgets by building in flexibility and control over when
to begin paying rent.
Landlords and counsel should understand the realistic timelines involved in deploying a cell site. Each
new site requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as well
as a building permit prior to construction. Ideally, the
tenant begins construction of its cell site shortly after receiving a building permit. It should be noted that the
applicant tenant controls when a building permit is issued which may not be favorable to the landlord under a
two-year option agreement.
The alternative to an option contract in a cell site
lease is to negotiate a reasonable timeline for rent commencement based upon the estimated date of building
12
permit issuance. Landlord and tenant can then expect rent
payments to coincide with occupancy. If the option contract cannot be eliminated, the landlord should obtain the
shortest term possible for the largest amount of consideration.
Cell site leases have changed little over time but
one important new provision has emerged. Tenants now
seek a right of first refusal (ROFR) relating to the assignment of lease rights or the granting of an easement by the
landlord. This is directly related to the advent and proliferation of cell site lease sales to third parties.
Landlords and counsel reviewing the ROFR language should ensure that its applicability is limited. For
example, the ROFR should not apply to any rights outside
the agreement in which the ROFR appears. The ROFR
should be clear about the notice required and set a timeline for the holder’s exercise of the ROFR. Tenants failing
to respond to notice in the required timeframe should be
deemed to have waived its right.
It is reasonable for landlords to expect consideration for the granting of a ROFR. Landlords can also seek
to amend the ROFR language to require the tenant to beat
any bona fide offer. Counsel representing a landlord can
also advise deleting the ROFR.
North County Lawyer
Summer Reading
Recommendations
Negotiating and draft cell site leases can be a
challenge to unsuspecting property owners and their attorneys. Terms such as the option contract and the right
of first refusal are opportunities to edit, revise or delete
language unfavorable to cell site landlords.
The North County Lawyer
Magazine is planning to
again publish its popular
and annual Summer Reading
Recommendations of book
reviews this summer.
Mike Ritter is an attorney with Clear Sky Law Group
and can be reached at [email protected] or by
phone at (760) 722-6582.
JAMES H. MAYER
ESQ.
MEDIATION SERVICES
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
EXPERIENCE
• General Commercial
and Business
• Real Estate
• Corporate and
Securities
• Employment
• Personal Injury
• Construction
• Environmental
• 19 Years as Mediator
• AV Rated since 1980
• Retired Partner, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
• Serves on San Diego Superior
Court and FINRA Mediation Panels
• Listed Who’s Who in American Law
• Honors Graduate of Dartmouth
College and Harvard Law School
• Rear Admiral, USNR (retired)
Please email your book review
recommendations to:
[email protected]
7924 Ivanhoe Ave., Suite 3 La Jolla, CA 92037
SOLUTIONS.
SAVINGS.
SATISFACTION.
Mayer Meditation 2011.indd 1
Your book review(s) should
be sent in WORD, and less
than 200 words. The sooner
we receive them, the sooner
your reviews can be published.
858-551-5525 fax 858-551-5554
email: [email protected]
WALTON LAW FIRM
Based in North County, Walton Law Firm has been representing
North County personal injury victims for more than a decade
and has recovered millions of dollars on their behalf.
9/29/2010 1:59:40 PM
SeriouS PerSonal injury • elder abuSe
We will take good care of your personal injury referrals and are glad to pay referral fees under CRPC 2-200.
•
•
•
•
•
Randall R. Walton
Peter Q. Schluederberg
Sarah Earnest
338 Via Vera Cruz • Suite 250 • San Marcos, CA 92078
June 2016
Liz Ka
|
p. 760.571.5500
Auto/Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death
Premises Liability
Nursing Home Abuse/Neglect
Insurance Bad Faith
Voted
|
2014-16
waltonlawfirm.net
13
May Dinner
A special thanks to Bill Lerach for sharing his life in law, what he did
and how he did it!
And to all in attendance!
Bill Lerach
The Honorable William Dato, Magistrate Judge Jan Adler, and
Simon Freedman
Bill Wolfe, Annette Hall Neville, and Katie Anderson
Anna Howard, Lisa Goldberg, and Bill Fuhrman
The Honorable Robert Dahlquist, Michael Doukas, and
Russell Gold
Jeffry Skiljan and Greg Lievers
14
North County Lawyer
Rena Wallenius, Quin Revel, Melissa Rodriguez, and Samantha Roe
Adam Levine and Erin Brandt
Christine Mueller, Debra Leffler Streeter, Annette Hall Neville, and
Michael & Susan Curran
Katherine & Jesse Allen
Debra Lewis and Amber Crothall
Martha Yancy, Carla DiMare, and Tom Penfield
Jim Treglio and Bobby Daniels
June 2016 Dan Jones and Derek Waldron
15
Mark A. Chambers
Attorney at Law
FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE
REPRESENTATION
Mark A. Chambers
For the last 35 years
345 W. Ninth Avenue Suite 200
Escondido, California 92025
(760) 489-1808
Website: markchamberslaw.com
Email: [email protected]
16
North County Lawyer
APPELLATE NOTES
By: Audrey Thornton Powers
What's Happening At The Supreme Court This Term?
H
ere are three cases of great interest which
were argued before the Supreme Court this
term including notes and observations from
the hearings. Of the date of this writing there
are yet no opinions filed in these cases, however, the
Court will be issuing more opinions over the next few
weeks. There is some speculation that because the Court
is now one justice short, this may lead the Court to defer
some opinions until a new Supreme Court Justice is confirmed.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt - Docket No. 15274
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was argued
on March 2, 2016. Whole Women’s Health is a chain of
clinics that have brought a constitutional challenge to a
Texas law which regulates facilities that perform abortions. It is a significant case in many ways, one being
that the case asks the Court to examine the integrity of
the “undue burden” balancing test shaped by moderate
judges in a compromise ruling in Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992). It is also the
Supreme Court’s first close look at abortion rights in nine
years. The issue presented in Whole Woman’s Health was
two-fold: (1) Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court
errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent
laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in
promoting health; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred
in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce
laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the
State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid
interest. The two main clauses at issue in the 2013 Texas law, known as “HB2” are: 1) a requirement that all
abortion doctors have a professional privilege to admit
patients to a nearby hospital, and 2) a requirement that
all abortion clinics upgrade to facilities capable of performing surgery. The petitioner argued that these regulations will effectively eviscerate basic access to abortion
in many regions in Texas.
Several courts – including the Seventh and Ninth
Circuits – have ruled that the "undue burden" standard
demands judicial inquiry into whether abortion regulations purportedly seeking to protect women’s health actually have that effect. This analysis requires the court to
weigh the burdens imposed against the health benefits
actually achieved. The Fifth Circuit has rejected such
a balancing inquiry and insists that courts must assess
health regulations on their face.
The hearing on March 2nd was intensely argued
by both sides, running twenty-six minutes longer than
scheduled. When the argument began the Court disputed whether there was any solid evidence in the record
of whether HB2 was, in fact, the cause for the sudden
closing of half of all abortion clinics in Texas and would
cause even more to close if the Justices upheld the law’s
two main clauses. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, then
changed the argument from the reason for closures to a
question of the capacity of any remaining clinics to handle the tens of thousands of abortions that women in the
state seek every year. Kennedy raised the possibility that
the case be sent back to lower courts to allow lawyers
to put evidence into the record about that capacity question. This could be seen as a tactic by Kennedy to find
a way out of a four-to-four split (with the recent passing
of Justice Scalia). Justice Kennedy was a key part of the
Continued on page 22
June 2016 17
Denials of Requests For Admissions
Are Not Admissible
At Trial – Gonsalves v. Li.
Continued from page 8
In the opinion, the court first undertook some
statutory interpretation, noting Defendant’s arguments that
the applicable discovery statutes expressly allow any part
of a deposition or interrogatory to be introduced at trial,
whereas they only provide that admissions in response to
RFAs are binding on the party at trial (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2025.620 re depositions, 2030.410 re interrogatories and
2033.410 re RFAs). The court further noted the statutory
scheme provides for monetary sanctions (i.e., reasonable
expenses including attorney fees) when a party unreasonably fails to admit a matter in response to RFAs, but does
not expressly permit a denial, objection or failure to respond to RFAs to be used against the party at trial. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, subd. (a)).
The court then drew a parallel to Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, a well-known opinion which condemned the use of “legal contention questions” at deposition (i.e. asking a deponent to state all facts
or identify all documents which support an affirmative
defense). Rifkind held that “legal contention questions”
unfairly require the deponent to make a “law-to-fact application that is beyond the competence of most lay persons”
and “to sort out the factual material in the case according
to specific legal contentions and to do this by memory and
on the spot.” Likewise, in Gonsalves, the court noted that
defendant Li was asked to explain “by memory and on the
spot” and without the ability to consult with his attorney
why he took the legal position that he could not admit or
deny certain RFA’s without further inquiry. And he was
asked to do this not in a deposition, as in Rifkind, but in
front of the jury.”
The court then noted, citing cases from Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri and Texas, that the weight of authority from other jurisdictions supports the position that
denials or qualified denials of requests for admissions are
not admissible evidence.
Finally, the court rejected the argument the RFA
denials were admissible to impeach Defendant’s credibility by showing his attitude toward the action in which he
testifies under Evidence Code § 780(j). The court found no
support for plaintiff’s attempt to make a party’s litigation
conduct a legitimate subject for inquiry under Evidence
Code section 780(j).
The court held that “denials of RFA’s are not admissible evidence in an ordinary case, i.e., a case where
a party’s litigation conduct is not directly in issue” and,
thus, “the trial court permitted examination of Li that
was unfair and prejudicial to him, and erred in admitting
those responses in evidence.”
There are takeaways from this case for both sides:
1. For the Propounding Party – Propound your RFAs
early in discovery so there will be sufficient time to
bring motions to compel admissions and to, through
orders and sanctions, narrow issues for trial. If only
RFA admissions have evidentiary value at trial, leave
time in your discovery plan to get the admissions you
need to narrow trial issues and streamline your trial.
Unchallenged RFA denials have no worth at trial.
Also, draft your RFAs clearly so you can get the compelling orders you want or need.
2. For the Responding Party – Under Gonsalves,
the trial risk of serving denials or qualified denials
is gone. Denials and qualified denials to RFAs cannot be used to impeach a witness, or to question witness veracity, or as fodder for closing argument as so
cleverly done by Plaintiff’s counsel in the case. And
this is appropriate. Given the likely significance of
an admission, counsel should be free, without risk of
adverse consequences or unfair arguments at trial, to
carefully and meticulously scrutinize the wording of
RFAs to insure that what will be admitted is crystalclear and not subject to misconstruction, misinterpretation or misunderstanding by the parties, the court
or the jury.
But, while the trial risk of RFA denials and
qualified denials is gone under Gonsalves, the monetary
risk is not. Under Code Civ. Proc., §2033.420, if a party
18
North County Lawyer
NORTH COUNTY
BAR ASSOCIATION
fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the
truth of any matter when requested to do so, and if the
party requesting that admission thereafter proves the
genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter,
the court, upon motion and subject to certain conditions,
may require the party to whom the request was directed
to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that
proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees. Thus, you
will not lose a jury and a trial as a result of your RFA
denials. But, you or your client may end up writing a big
check after it is all done if your denials were unreasonable under §2033.420(b)(1)-(4).
GOLF TOURNAMENT
our
Mark Y ar
Calend
James D. Crosby
Partner – Business and Commercial Litigation
Henderson, Caverly, Pum & Charney, LLP
12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92130
O: (858) 755-3000
C: (858) 705-0083
Email: [email protected]
MONDAY
OCTOBER 10, 2016
Twin Oaks Golf Course
1425 North Twin Oaks
Valley Road
San Marcos
760-591-4700
Terry Kasbeer, Chairman
of the Golf Committee
SHOTGUN START
At 12:00 p.m.
Dinner will be in the Garden Room
Great Atmosphere!
Only $85.00 per player
includes golf fees & dinner
CRIMINAL DEFENSE SPECIALIST
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
FORMER POLICE OFFICER/INvESTIGATOR
JAMES N. DICKS
DEFENDING SAN DIEGANS FROM
CRIMINAL AND DUI PROSECUTION
FOR OVER 25 YEARS
WWW.JIMDICKS.COM
760-630-2000
June 2016 19
One of the joyous duties of Superior Court Judges is ADOPTIONS. The adoption is not just a legal event, a hearing, just legal process, it is a Life Event. It is a special day in the life of the adopting
parents, and for the child being adopted. Even if the child is too young
to remember, that adoption will always be a cornerstone in their life. Our
Vista Judges make this event more special.
TEDDYBEARS: As part of the Adoption Ceremony, the Judges give a
Teddy Bear to every person going through the adoption. The Child has
that Teddy Bear to always remind that not only is he or she special, they
are wanted, desired, chosen. We hear from adults that were adopted as
children how special the bear was to their life, and how memorable the ceremony was from the parents.
BUDGET PROBLEMS: As you know, the courts are going through great reduction in budgets and there is no money
in the budget for Teddy Bears. In steps the North County Bar Association. For many years now, the bar has stepped
up, raised funds for this special project, bought bears at wholesale and provided these special mementos in every Vista
adoption.
YOU: We could use your help. Any donation, small or large, is appreciated. Just send a check to the BANSDC, write in
the memo “The Teddy Bear Project” and mail to BANSDC, P.O. Box 2381, Vista, CA. 92085. Thank you!
Do You Need to Refer a Client,
but don’t know who to call...
760-758-4755
Sponsored by the North County Bar Association
www.lawreferral.org
20
North County Lawyer
June 2016 21
APPELLATE NOTES
Continued from page 17
Court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Casey.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Docket No. 14981
Stephanie Toti, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, speaking for the abortion clinics was
questioned at length by Justice Sonia Sotomayor about
abortion procedures. Justice Sotomayor went on with
questions after Chief Justice Roberts signaled that the
lawyer then at the lectern was finished.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin , another
review of a Fifth Circuit decision, was argued on December 9, 2015. The issue presented in this case is: “Does
the use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions
by the University of Texas violate the Equal Protection
Clause?” This case was heard at the Supreme Court two
years ago, when a seven-to-one decision returned the
case to lower courts for another look, with some guidance. The Supreme Court has now decided to take a second look at affirmative action nationwide and the way it
is done at UT-Austin.
When Toti’s red light came on, Sotomayor asked,
“If the Chief may permit me to finish my two-part question?”
“Sure,” Roberts said. After a couple of more minutes of
back-and-forth between Sotomayor and Toti, Roberts
tried to end the discussion by stating: “Thank you, counsel.”
But Roberts was unsuccessful. Sotomayor began
to ask another question about abortions which involves
taking abortion pills instead of having a surgical procedure.
When Solicitor General Scott A. Keller stepped
to the lectern for Texas, the Chief Justice told him that
he would get an extra eight minutes, which is “roughly”
what the other side got. “An extra thank you, Mr. Chief
Justice,” Keller responded.
At one point late in the argument, as Keller was
answering questions from other members of the Court,
Justices Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer started to engage
in their own conversation about the case.
As Keller’s time wound down, it was Justice
Ginsburg who kept questioning Keller despite the Chief
Justice’s attempts to close out the Texas solicitor general’s
time. She elicited laughter from the audience when she
asked Keller, "Is there really any dispute that childbirth is
a much riskier procedure than an early stage abortion?"
When Justice Sotamayor joined in with more questions
for Keller, Justice Kennedy remarked, " Sonia is off."
Finally, after an answer by Keller, Roberts ended
the argument stating: “Thank you, counsel.”
Abigail Fisher, the white student who is challenging the use of race in admissions at the university which
rejected her application in 2008, was present at oral argument again, as she was for the first round of arguments
in her case in October 2012. Fisher, now a twenty-fiveyear-old financial analyst in Austin, ended up graduating
from Louisiana State University. Her lawyer, Bert Rein of
Washington, told the Court that the consequences of her
“nonadmission” to UT-Austin, where her sister and father
had attended, including having to go to “an alternative
university.” Also present, Edward Blum, the founder of
the Project on Fair Representation, the group behind the
challenge, and a UT-Austin graduate himself.
Other appearances at oral argument were Cecilia
Marshall, the widow of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall; the Rev. Al Sharpton; and Richard Kahlenberg, the
Century Foundation scholar who writes op-eds arguing
for the use of socioeconomic factors, rather than race, in
admissions to achieve diversity. The Court was missing
Justice Elena Kagan, who was sitting out the case again,
because of her past involvement with this very case while
a government lawyer.
The Justices often try to reinforce each other
when questioning advocates during oral argument, even
when they are likely on opposite sides of the issue at
hand. The university’s lawyer, Gregory G. Garre and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., were scuffling over the role of
22
Continued on page 24
North County Lawyer
Law Day Free Legal Clinic
By: Marian H. Birge
On May 5, 2016 the North County Bar Association and the San Diego Law Library co-sponsored our
annual free legal clinic at the Vista branch in celebration of Law Day. We served fifty-six clients from three
counties; San Diego, Orange, and Imperial. Our visitors
came from twelve communities, including Escondido,
Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, Vista, Fallbrook,
Carlsbad, Encinitas, Valley Center, Cardiff, Imperial,
and Huntington Beach.
Twenty-four volunteer attorneys donated their
time and expertise to assist people with issues ranging
from A to Z, including family law, real property, criminal, probate, civil litigation, and immigration. Special
recognition goes to our paralegal volunteers, William
Gilliam, Carmen L. Matthews, and Jerry Limberg who
coordinated intake along with Librarians Debra Morse
and Cheryl Weeks Fry.
We received a number of heartfelt expressions
of thanks from those who received assistance, which extend to the following NCBA attorneys who took time out
of their day to volunteer:
A. Erwin Bautista Thomas Behr Marian Birge Glen Cairns Mark Chambers Amber Crothall Kate Cutsinger Robert Daniels
Michael Doukas Steven Fritsch John Hanson Stephen Hinze Jeff Lacy Eric Morton Mike Ritter Ione Rummery
- bankruptcy, immigration
- trusts
- employment & business
- business
- criminal defense
- real property, gen civil
- criminal, construction defect,
malpractice
- business, real estate,
LL/tenant
- business, Cons. credit, fraud
- family law
- PI, civil litigation
- bankruptcy and probate
- family law
- business, trademark,
copyright, IT
- estate planning and cell site
management
- trusts and estates
June 2016 Marian Birge and Debra Morse
Iku Sano
Noreez Santz Suzanne Skolnick Elisabeth Silva Joseph Stine Silvina Tondini Caron Woodward William Wolfe - estate planning, TROs
- criminal defense
- PI
- criminal defense, administrative
- real property, business
- immigration
- business, civil litigation,
and probate
- criminal defense
A special thank you to the morning crew at Starbucks, 7615 Via Campanile #120, Carlsbad, CA for donating the coffee that fueled our volunteers.
It's easy to make a buck. It's a lot tougher to make a
difference.
Tom Brokaw
23
APPELLATE NOTES
Continued from page 22
Texas’s Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to state universities to those at the top of their high
school classes. Then, surprisingly, Sotomayor came to the
aid of her colleague, rather than Garre.
“Mr. Garre, this is the fundamental problem that
I think Justice Alito is pointing to, and you’re sort of talking past each other,” Sotomayor said. “So maybe I’ll explain his view.”
As the courtroom laughed, she added, “Strange,
isn’t that?”
Alito responded, “I could – I can use the help.”
Sotomayor attempted to summarize what she believed to be Alito’s view, essentially that the university
didn’t work enough to see whether those admitted under
the Top Ten Percent Plan provided the kind of diversity it
sought. “So that’s his view, I think,” Sotomayor said.
“Well, that’s my question,” Alito said, and more
laughter erupted.
The most unexpected turn, however, came from
the late Justice Antonin Scalia, when he suggested to
Garre, “There are there are those who contend that it does
not benefit African Americans to -- to get them into the
University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a less
-- a slower track school where they do well." Scalia continued, "One of the briefs pointed out that -- that most of
the -- most of the black scientists in this country don't
come from schools like the University of Texas.” Neither
Sotomayor nor any of his other colleagues offered to help
Scalia “explain his view” on this.
The argument continued for nearly another halfhour, with some more furious exchanges between Justice
Sotamayor and attorney Bert Rein, providing no clear
resolution in sight for a case that may reach its conclusion
by late June, or may yet be bouncing around for years to
come.
Foster v. Chatman - Docket No. 14-8349
Foster v. Chatman, was argued on November 2,
2015. The issue presented is whether the Georgia courts
erred in failing to recognize race discrimination in jury
selection under Batson v. Kentucky in the extraordinary
circumstances of this death penalty case. At trial, in 1987,
Foster, an eighteen-year-old African American at the time,
was convicted of killing an elderly white woman during
a burglary in Georgia. During jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory strikes to strike all four black
potential jurors, and Foster was convicted and sentenced
to death by an all-white jury. After jury selection Foster
had brought a Batson motion claiming race discrimination in jury selection. Batson v. Kentucky (1986) held that
peremptory challenges could not be used in an attempt at
“purposeful racial discrimination to bar African Americans from juries.” The prosecution opposed Foster's motion by giving a multitude of conflicting "race neutral"
reasons for striking all of the black jurors, and the trial
court upheld the strikes and denied Foster's Batson motion.
But, some nineteen years later, in 2006, during
state habeas corpus proceedings, Foster's attorneys obtained the prosecution’s notes from jury selection pursuant to an Open Records Act request, which notes had
been previously withheld. The notes revealed a number
of new, disturbing, facts: (1) each black juror was marked
with a “B” and highlighted in green, which “Represents
Blacks”; (2) on the juror questionnaires, the race “Black”
was circled; (3) on individual juror cards, the black potential jurors were identified as “B#1,” B#2,” etc.; (4) One
potential juror was identified by the prosecution investigator as “if it comes down to having to pick one of the
black jurors, Garret might be okay;” (5) A list of “definite
NO’s” listed the black potential jurors first and in numerical order.
The Supreme Court has now granted cert. directly
from the Georgia Supreme Court’s summary denial of appeal from that Batson motion ruling, suggesting, perhaps,
an impatience with waiting for a lengthy federal habeas
process to happen. Foster is seeking relief under the 14th
Amendment, arguing that the new evidence is a smoking
gun proving that race was a huge factor in the juror challenges. Foster (represented by well-known death-penalty
lawyer Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human
Rights) argued that “the evidence of racial motive by the
prosecution … is extensive and undeniable,” while the
24
North County Lawyer
Georgia Attorney General contended that “none of the
… new evidence shows an intent to discriminate” and
that the federal court must give great deference to the
state court’s ruling.
The specter of improper racial influences in
administration of the death penalty has long haunted
the Court. The Court's 2015 Term also has an unusual
focus on the application of the Eighth Amendment’s
“cruel and unusual punishment” clause, by granting
review of five cases which involve Eighth Amendment
issues, four of them the death penalty.
In June 2015, the Supreme Court’s Term
ended with Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion (joined
by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) in Glossip v. Gross,
which announced that both Justices now “believe it
highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth
Amendment.” Foster obviously raises concerns apart
from the Eighth Amendment, and the Court could decide the case without reference to the death penalty at
all. Justice Kennedy, among others, has criticized the
summary denial of Batson claims when significant evidence is presented (in Miller-El v. Cockrell in 2003).
When Foster is decided, the memory of the Court’s
1986 decision in McCleskey v. Georgia, turning aside
questions of race disparity in Georgia’s capital sentencing history, will likely be in the minds of at least
some Justices. Eighth Amendment concerns may not
be spoken, but they undoubtedly will be present.
Audrey Powers Thornton can be reached at:
Telephone 760.688.0600
[email protected]
POST-CONVICTION legal matters
Diane T. Letarte, MBA, LLM
M.S. Forensic Psychology
• Lifer Parole Suitability Hearings (Youth & Elder, ISL)
• Direct and Collateral (Habeas Corpus) Appeals
• 3-Strikes & Re-sentencing Petition
• SB260/261 Youth Offender Parole Hearings (DSL/ISL)
Former President of NC Chapter of Lawyers Club
Judge Pro Tem S.D. Superior Court
619-233-3688 * Toll Free 888-200-8385
[email protected] * www.renegade-attorney.com
1080 Park Blvd., Ste 1008
San Diego, CA 92101
Affiliations: California Association of Parole Defense
Attorneys (CAPDA), National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers, Local: Lawyers Club, San Diego Bar,
North County Bar.
Certified Family Law Specialist
Seeking Part-time Employment
Certified family law specialist with over twenty-two
years of experience is seeking part-time employment.
Applicant has had her own firm for over twenty years.
Please contact (760)726-6777.
Family Law Specialist Wants To Share
Office Space With Another Attorney
Attorney has extra office for rent just a couple of blocks
from the courthouse. The cost is $650.00 per month
and half the cost of the receptionist salary. Our office
includes two private offices, full reception area, conference room and file room.
Please contact (760)726-6777
June 2016 Do You Need to Refer
a Client, but don’t know
who to call...
760-758-4755
Sponsored by the North County
Bar Association
www.lawreferral.org
Certification Number 0027
25
Classifieds
LEGAL MALPRACTICE-Richard
Leuthold (SB #52980) is certified as a legal specialist in Legal Malpractice Law by
the California Board of Legal SpecializaMEDICAL MALPRACTICE - referrals
tion of the State Bar of California and repand co-counsel. Joel Selik 760-479-1515.
resents clients in professional malpractice
matters.
VISTA ACROSS FROM COURTHOUSE
(858) 792-7070 or [email protected].
– Full-service law office for rent. $700/
mo includes utils., receptionist, conf. rms.,
JUDGEMENT COLLECTION Westlaw access, kitchen, copier, utilities,
California & Nevada, Joel Selik
janitorial, parking included. Call Lea­
760-479-1515.
(760) 941-2260 or [email protected].
LEGAL MALPRACTICE - Referrals and CONSTITUTIONAL OR APPEALS referrals, co-counsel, or contract work for
consultation. Joel Selik 760-479-1515.
all constitutional matters (trial or appeal)
EMPLOYMENT - 30+ years in Pl's & and all appeals (civil or criminal). Ben RuDef P. I. litigation. Relocating to North S.D. din. [email protected]
County. Have fully vested health & dental or (858) 761-6417
insurance. Would like to associate with Pl's
or Def. P. I. firm (888) 485-2826 (toll free);
e-mail [email protected]. Calif. Bar# 48798.
WANTED: TRIAL EXPERIENCE
Have a case coming up for trial?
Could you use some help? A second chair
to back you up
or share the workload?
If so, I would like to help. John Hansen,
760-722-0322,
[email protected]
RODEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
– ESCONDIDO- ONLY 1 OFFICE LEFT
available for immediate occupancy close
to downtown restaurants, banks, shopping, library and more. Our offices are approximately 12’x16’ with a separate 9’x9’
secretarial space both with windows. Rent
includes, conference room, receptionist,
monitored security, 24 hour access, voice
mail, notary services, gas, electric, water,
trash, janitorial twice weekly and off street
parking. Amenities include upgraded
lighting, coffee, tea, microwave, toaster
oven, refrigerator w/ice maker. Optional
copy/scanner, postage and fax machines
available. Please contact Debbie or Frank
at 760-745-1484 or by e-mail at [email protected] . When using e-mail
please put Office Space Available in the
subject line. We look forward to meeting
you soon.
OFFICE - Suites available for lease in
beautiful building. Spacious reception
area. Lots of storage, forced air heat and
AC. Parking lot in front and back of office.
Owner prefers long-term lease. Please call
(760) 690-3999.
* Located across the street from
Courthouse in Vista.
* Next to shopping strip.
* Upgraded reception area.
* Large private window lined offices.
* Hwy 78 visibility.
LAW OFFICE FOR RENT
Beautiful upscale office available in active litigation practice. Private entrance.
Furniture available if needed. Month to
Month or Lease. Carlsbad near the airport.
$700.00. Call 760-431-7771.
OFFICE FOR RENT in upscale setting
with other legal professionals. Great for
collaboration, cross marketing & more. Includes utilities, kitchen & parking. Close
to freeway & access to all North County.
Contact 760-931-9923
WELL ESTABLISHED ESTATE
PLANNING FIRM - with a very large clientele for sale in Oceanside on El Camino
Real near 78. Turn Key Business (ready
to go) practice includes doing all kinds of
Trusts including revocable and irrevocable
and Ancillary Documents, Trust Administration and Medi-Cal Planning and handle
family meetings to avoid litigation. Will
train. Call (760) 419-7869 for information.
26
North County Lawyer
Education Calendar
For changes or cancelations, please
visit www.northcountybar.org
CIVIL LITIGATION/
PERSONAL INJURY LAW SECTION
DATE/TIME: Thursday 6/2 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
PLACE: Dept. TBA *San Diego Superior Court
(325 S. Melrose Dr. in Vista)
TOPIC: New Law Mandates Expedited Jury Trials
SPEAKER: Edward J. Babbitt of the Law Office
of Edward J. Babbitt APC
INFO: Susan Curran - (760) 634-1229 or
T. Steven Burke, Jr. (760) 435-3977
MCLE CREDIT HOURS: 1.5 General
TRUSTS & ESTATES
DATE/TIME: Wednesday 6/8 12:00 p.m.
PLACE: The Broken Yolk Café;
(101 Las Posas Road; San Marcos)
TOPIC: Meet Judge Longstreth And Courtroom Q&A
SPEAKER: The Honorable Robert C. Longstreth
INFO: Patricia Andel (760) 631-6360 and
Christine Mohar (760) 630-0200
MCLE CREDIT HOURS: 1.0 General
PERSONAL INJURY
Lunch will be provided
DATE/TIME: Tuesday 6/14 12:00 p.m.
PLACE: NCBA Office (249 S. Indiana Avenue in Vista)
TOPIC: Update On The Latest Thinking On
Maximizing Damages In Trial And Lessons Learned
From 40 Years Of Practice
SPEAKER: Thomas Penfield, Esq.
INFO: Lionel Halsey- (760) 494-7294
MCLE CREDIT HOURS: 1.0 General
WORKERS COMP
DATE/TIME: Friday 6/17 12:00 p.m.
PLACE: Vista Village Pub (224 Main St. in Vista)
TOPIC: Inconsistencies In Med-Legal Reporting And
Common Errors To Look For When Preparing Requests
For Supplemental Reports Or Depositions
SPEAKER: Sherry German
INFO: Michelle Bettis (760) 476-9990 or
Manuel Rodriquez (760) 433-9009
MCLE CREDIT HOURS: 1.0 General
June 2016
BUSINESS LAW
DATE/TIME: Tuesday 6/21 12:00 p.m.
PLACE: NCBA Office (249 S. Indiana Avenue in Vista)
TOPIC: Financial Considerations in Exit Planning
SPEAKERS: Cheryl Kessler and Joshua Vannetti
INFO: Melissa L. Bustarde (858) 793-8090
Kelly Reid (760) 746-6420
MCLE CREDIT HOURS: 1.0 General
The BANSDC (dba North County Bar Assosiation) certifies that the above
activities conform to the standards set forth in Section 7.1 for approved
education activities prescribed by the Rules and Regulations of the State
Bar of California governing MCLE and are approved for MCLE credit by
the State Bar of California. Provider #1064
Please visit our website
for updates
www.northcountybar.org
Calendar of Events
Dinners are held at
The Crossings in Carlsbad
June 16th
Bench/Bar Reception
July - No Dinner
Beach Party
Saturday, July 23th at Oceanside Harbor
August-No Dinner
NCBA Dinner
60th Year Aniversary Celebration
September 15th at The Crossings Carlsbad
October 10th Golf Tournament
October 20th Bar Dinner
27
North County
Bar Association
Post Office Box 2381
Vista, CA 92085
PRSRT STD
U.S. POSTAGE
P A I D
Vista, CA 92085
Permit No. 43
Change Service Requested
The North County Bar Association And
Lawyers Club-North County Chapter
cordially invites you to attend its
Bench & Bar Reception
Thursday, June 16, 2016
5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at
The Crossings in Carlsbad
5800 The Crossings Drive in Carlsbad
Highlights of the evening will include
the introduction of each judge in attendance by
The Honorable William Dato
San Diego Superior Court Supervising Judge
ATTORNEY OF THE YEAR AWARD and
THE WILLIAM R. FLETCHER "THE FLETCH AWARD" by
Joseph L. Stine, NCBA President
COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD
by
Lawyers Club-North County Chapter
FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY OF THE YEAR AWARD
by North County Certified Family Specialists
Please join us and bring a friend!
Cost is $30.00 Includes Bountiful Buffet and Wine. Please forward your reservations to:
NCBA, P.O. Box 2381, Vista, CA 92085.
To pay by Credit Card, please call the bar office at 760.758.5833.