Civil Procedure

One of the more important recent developments in California procedural law is the enactment of an entirely new set of provisions dealing with personal jurisdiction and service of process. The new procedure is effective July 1, 1970, and will alter substantially a number of current practices

Defining the Word ‘Maintain’; Context Counts

The Supreme Court in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Ins. Co., a diversity-of-citizenship case, held that a state statute prohibiting “maintenance” of a class action to enforce a penalty clashed with the terms of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that authorizes “maintenance” of a class suits meeting the requirements of the rule. Writing for himself and three others Justices, Justice Scalia refused to consider the history of the state provision and merely declared that its “clear text” established the conflict. He failed to consider the fact that the word “maintain” is ambiguous and that there is reason to believe that that word means one thing in the statute and another in the rule. The result of the decision is that a case that could not be tried in a state court was to be tried in a federal court under diversity jurisdiction, leading to violation of the Rules Enabling Act and serious forum shopping

Civil Procedure

In 1965 the legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure section 657, which concerns the procedure for granting a new trial. In Mercer v. Perez and Treber v. Superior Court the supreme court interpreted the new provisions and attempted to clarify them. Subsequently, a number of related cases were decided in the courts of appeal. Together these cases involve important changes in the practice regarding new trials