Orange County Superior Court Appoints A New Chief Executive Officer
Nationally recognized court administrator Alan Carlson has been selected by the judges of the Superior Court of Orange County as the new Chief Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court/Jury Commissioner. His appointment will be effective September 8, 2008. “Mr. Carlson’s exceptional leadership skills, wealth of experience, and progressive thinking in court management will serve our Court and community well,” said Presiding Judge Nancy Wieben Stock. She added, “His vision is aligned with our Court’s goal of providing high quality justice and service to the public.” Mr. Carlson is currently the President of the Justice Management Institute (JMI), an independent, non-profit organization that provides technical assistance, workshops, research, professional publications and continuing education programs to improve the administration of justice. In this role Mr. Carlson specializes in matters of privacy and justice information sharing, court finance, criminal case flow management and urban court management. From 1993-2000 Mr. Carlson was the CEO of the San Francisco Superior Court. Mr. Carlson’s trial court experience also includes executive responsibilities in the administration of the Monterey and Alameda Superior Courts and three years with the Administrative Office of the Courts as an Assistant Director for Court Services with responsibilities for court funding, court consolidation, evaluating trial court civil delay reduction and developing a training institute for court staff. Mr. Carlson holds a Juris Doctorate from UC Hastings College of Law and a Bachelor's Degree in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research from UC Berkeley. He is an active member of the California State Bar. Chief Executive Officer Alan Slater, who has had a distinguished career of more than 36 years with the Court, has announced that he plans to retire from court service in October 2008.
Morris & Stone Wins $69,500 at Orange County Superior Court, Without Calling a Single Witness.
In an action brought in Orange County Superior Court, the plaintiff alleged that he had loaned over $57,000 to a friend, but the friend then refused to repay the money. That normally would be a simple case to prove, but there were some major problems. First, the payments to defendant had been made over a number of years, most of them in relatively small amounts, giving the impression that they might have been gifts (which is what the defendant was contending). Next, the agreement was entirely oral; there was nothing in writing to prove that the money was a loan. Finally, and most problematic, the breach of the agreement appeared to have occurred many years before, and the statute of limitations on an oral agreement is just two years.
The defendant was represented by Thomas M. Davis of Wilson, Borror, Dunn & Davis. He argued throughout the case that plaintiff would never be able to prove that the money was a loan, and contended that the case would be barred by the statute of limitations. That conviction died on the day of trial. After a pre-trial conference with the judge during which Aaron Morris set forth how he would prove the case, defendant agreed to a stipulated judgment in the full amount sought by plaintiff -- $69,500. Judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor without ever calling a witness, and with very nominal attorney fees.
Hon. Kim G. Dunning Elected Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court
Judges of the Superior Court of Orange County unanimously elected Hon. Kim G. Dunning as Presiding Judge and Hon. Thomas J. Borris as the Assistant Presiding Judge at an election held Friday, June 13, announced Presiding Judge Nancy Wieben Stock. Both will begin their two year term in January 2009, when the terms of the current Presiding Judge and Assistant Presiding Judge expire. “It is a privilege to serve Orange County as a Superior Court judge, and I look forward to the opportunity to serve our judicial officers and court staff as well in this new role,” said Judge Dunning.
Judge Dunning has been the Assistant Presiding Judge since January 2006 and has been actively involved in efforts to build a new courthouse in Laguna Niguel, which, when completed, will better serve the growing South Orange County population. She also serves on the Judicial Council’s Court Technology Advisory Committee and has promoted the use of technology to provide better access to the courts and to serve the public. Her judicial assignments have included complex civil cases, juvenile dependency and delinquency, felony preliminary hearings, misdemeanors and family law. Judge Dunning was appointed to the Superior Court in 1997 by Governor Pete Wilson. Before becoming a judge, she was an attorney in private practice, a senior research attorney for Associate Justice Thomas F. Crosby, Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Division 3 and a Deputy City Attorney for the City of Santa Ana. Judge Dunning received her B.A. in Economics from Stanford University in 1972. She received her J.D. from Southern Methodist University School of Law, Dallas Texas in 1977.
Morris & Stone Obtains a Judgment with a Single Motion
This case has an unusual fact pattern. A woman contacted a TV repair service called Kao's TV Repair when her big screen television stopped working. The repairperson came to her home, looked at the television and presented her with an estimate, which bore the name "Kao's TV Service." He then asked the (very diminutive) woman to assist him with loading the big screen television into his truck. During that process, she suffered a serious back injury and ended up suing the repair shop in Orange County Superior Court.
The repair shop was a sole proprietorship. The woman's personal injury attorney failed to adequately research the business, and as a result used only the name that appeared on the repair estimate. Unfortunately, Mr. Kao had never formally registered that name. When he was served with the complaint, he chose to ignore it. The woman obtained a fairly significant default judgment, but for almost a year nothing was done to collect the judgment. When an effort was finally made to collect, the mistake in the name was discovered. The difference in the name was very problematic. As it was stated, the judgment was unenforceable since there was no entity by the name "Kao's TV Service." However, there was also no ability to start the action over with the correct name since the statute of limitations had long since passed.
Plaintiff retained Morris & Stone to see if the judgment could be saved. With a single motion, brought in Orange County Superior Court, Morris & Stone persuaded the court to amend the judgment to name both Mr. Kao and his business. Counsel for the defendant argued that since the named defendant did not exist, the judgment was a nullity. Aaron Morris refuted that argument by proving that Mr. Kao had known about the action the entire time, but was merely trying to hide behind the misstated name.
Judgment Against Defendant and His Attorney in Orange County Superior Court
In this action brought in Orange County Superior Court, the defendant had been involved in a commercial real estate transaction some ten years earlier. Millions of dollars had been distributed, one disgruntled investor (plaintiff) argued about a small sum of money that was held in an escrow account for expenses. Plaintiff claimed it should be distributed, while defendant asserted that it was owed to him, the general manager. The parties agreed to submit the matter to arbitration, but when the day came for the hearing the plaintiff refused to participate in the process, and thereafter sued for the approximately $35,000 in the escrow account. Pretending not to be able to find defendant, the plaintiff received permission from the Orange County Superior Court to serve the complaint by publication. This procedure is somewhat of a legal fiction, which permits a plaintiff to "serve" a defendant by publishing a notice in a newspaper. The defendant had no idea he was being sued.
Having "served" the defendant without his knowledge, the plaintiff was able to go to trial unopposed. Although the amount in controversy was just $35,000, the unopposed complaint resulted in a judgment equaling over $2 million. (With no opposition, plaintiff was able to claim everything from emotional distress to loss of profits he would have received if only he had had the $35,000 to invest.) Morris & Stone was retained at this point by the defendant to vacate the $2 million judgment.
The firm brought a motion to vacate the judgment, which was granted. Morris & Stone then brought a cross-complaint against plaintiff and his attorney for the misconduct in failing to properly serve the complaint. The court rejected motion after motion brought by plaintiff's counsel trying to dispose of our cross-complaint against him.
Morris & Stone opted for a bench trial, and when the matter was done, not only did the firm defeat the claim against defendant, the court entered judgment against the plaintiff/cross-defendant in the amount of $60,000 for actual damages, and an additional $100,000 in punitive damages. The court also awarded $78,000 in damages against opposing counsel plus an additional $3,000 in sanctions.
