San Francisco Paralegal Association

News

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • 09/24/2017 5:30 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

     

    10-20-17-careers-of-distinction-awards-dinner

    Online Registration for this Event is Unavailable. Please call the SCBA office at (707) 542-1190 ext. 10 to Register by Phone or Click Here to Download Registration Flyer

     

  • 09/21/2017 6:45 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Bloomberg Law

    September 20, 2017

    By Susan Decker, Bloomberg News

     

    Allergan Plc’s decision to pay a Native American tribe $15 million a year rather than let one of its blockbuster drugs be scrutinized by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is part of a backlash against an agency review panel that has been dubbed a “death squad.”

     

    The drugmaker earlier this month transferred ownership of patents protecting a medicine with $1.49 billion in sales last year to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe of upstate New York. The tribe, which will receive royalties every year, says that as a sovereign entity it is immune from such civil patent challenges.

     

    The creative — and untested — maneuver is designed to circumvent the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a five-year-old, fast-track review panel that’s become the top U.S. venue for multimillion dollar patent fights. Pharmaceuticals, biotechnology companies, and other critics say the board has made it too easy for rivals to attack patents and they’re pressing Congress, the courts and the patent office for changes.

     

    On the other side are Silicon Valley companies such as Google or Apple Inc., which are among the biggest users of the review board to fend off what they consider nuisance lawsuits from companies looking for a quick payday.

     

    “Critics are well organized and they want change — they don’t care if it’s in the courts or Congress,” said John Thorne, general counsel for the High Tech Inventors Alliance, a group that supports PTAB, as the panel is known, and has members including Google, Amazon.com Inc. and Intel Corp.

     

    PTAB was created by the patent office under 2011 legislation that marked the biggest changes in the U.S. patent process in six decades. The board allows parties to challenge whether a patent was properly issued by the patent office. Since the first IPR challenge was filed in 2012, thousands of patents have been canceled.

     

    “People are starting to realize that the invalidation rates are sky high,” said software inventor Paul Morinville who founded a group called US Inventor Inc. to pitch his arguments against PTAB to members of Congress and their staffs.

     

    The earliest cases invalidated so many patents it was dubbed a “death squad” by Randall Rader, the former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which oversees all patent disputes in the country. 

     

    SCOTUS Case

     

    In June, the Supreme Court agreed to take a case to determine if the reviews are constitutional — critics of the reviews say a patent is a property right that only federal courts can revoke. But even those who want to see the system dismantled say that case is a long shot.

     

    While a district court is seen as “an impartial adjudicator” of disputes, the PTAB reviews “feel like it’s the patent owner against the patent office and the other guy,” said Hans Sauer, deputy general counsel for Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a Washington trade group whose members include Allergan, Amgen Inc. and Monsanto Co.

     

    Sauer is critical of the different legal standards between the courts and the patent office, where a patent can be upheld by a federal judge and invalidated at the agency. He said it’s counter to assurances that the system would be fair. Drugmakers and biotech companies want the rules to be more consistent with courts or have their industry carved out entirely because disputes involving their patents are covered by other laws.

     

    Gaming the System

     

    PTAB is facing scrutiny on other fronts too. The Federal Circuit, which usually supports the board’s rulings on patents, has criticized some of its procedures this year, such as not allowing patent owners to introduce certain evidence and a failure to adequately explain its actions.

    Some patent office judges are frustrated about parties trying to game the system. In a Sept. 6 decision in a case against Canon Inc. on toner cartridges, a seven-judge PTAB panel railed against challengers filing multiple petitions on the same patent until they got the result they sought.

     

    “PTAB is still relatively young,” said lawyer Scott Kelly of Banner & Witcoff in Washington, who’s filed almost four dozen petitions for clients this year. Some of the flaws are the result of growing pains. The agency had expected to get a few hundred petitions a year. Instead, more than 7,300 were filed between 2012 and July.

     

    Tech, Pharma

     

    Technology companies like Microsoft Corp. pushed for the law that created PTAB. It also had the support of a group of large patent owners, whose members included Johnson & Johnson, 3M Corp., and General Electric Co.

     

    While the number of patent lawsuits in federal court is dropping, use of the patent board is increasing. In the first half of this year, 987 petitions were filed in the patent office, up 16 percent from the year-ago period, according to Unified Patents, a tech-backed group that files challenges to fend off lawsuits. By contrast, the number of civil suits dropped 12 percent to 1,919.

     

    PTAB has proven a more popular venue for parties in the electrical and computer fields, accounting for three out of five of the 1,650 petitions between Oct. 1 and July 31, according to patent office statistics. Bio and pharma petitions make up 11 percent.

     

    Apple, Samsung Electronics Co. and Google — among the most-sued companies over patents — are also the most prolific users of the patent board. Apple’s filed some 350 petitions since the procedures began, Samsung’s lodged more than 250 and Google’s filed 189, according to a check of the PTAB’s docketing system. Apple and Samsung didn’t comment; Google referred queries to Thorne.

     

    The patent office has been considering changes to its procedures, but those were put on hold after Michelle Lee, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, left the post.

     

    President Donald Trump’s nominee, lawyer Andrei Iancu, hasn’t gone through Senate confirmation and his views are the subject of speculation from all sides of the debate.

     

    High Tech’s Thorne said he sees the reviews as a matter of “self-correction.” “It’s really a small number of patents that shouldn’t have been issued that are being canceled by the people who issued them,” he said.

     

    For drugmakers, however, “PTAB remains the No. 1 issue” on patents, said BIO’s Sauer. 

     

    Allergan’s Strategy

     

    It remains to be seen whether Allergan’s legal strategy will work; the PTAB panel hearing the case has ordered additional written legal arguments.

     

    Allergan is facing a challenge over its Restasis patents from Mylan NV, which wants to produce a generic version. The board previously determined that Mylan has established a “reasonable likelihood” of winning its arguments that the patents are invalid.

     

    By transferring ownership to the tribe, Allergan can try to limit its legal battle to the courts, where it’s harder to invalidate patents because of a more stringent legal standard.

     

    The tribe says sovereignty shields it from civil legal challenges over patents. State and foreign governments can’t be sued or subjected to federal government action except in certain circumstances.

     

    “I would expect it creates a playbook for other cases down the road both for us and for others,” said Bob Bailey, Allergan’s chief legal officer.

     

     

     https://bol.bna.com/apple-likes-the-patent-death-squad-allergan-pays-to-avoid-it/

     

     

  • 09/20/2017 5:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    ABA Journal

    Legal Rebels Profile

    September 20, 2017

    By Stephanie Francis Ward

     

     woman smiling standing behind fence

    Photo of Laney Feingold by Tony Avelar

     

    The word compliance is frequently used in legal matters related to the Americans with Disabilities Act. But Lainey Feingold says simply meeting the law’s standard is not enough.

     

    “We have to go beyond compliance. It’s about integrating technology, web development and usability,” says the Berkeley, California, sole practitioner, whose work centers on digital accessibility for people who are blind. “When technology becomes a compliance issue, our creativity is lost, our enthusiasm is lost, and things get stuck in the law office.”

     

    Rather than litigation, Feingold finds solutions through structured negotiation, a collaborative dispute resolution method. Businesses like it because the process is cheaper and often faster than litigation, she says. Also—because the settlement agreements always include extensive product testing, input and feedback by people who are blind—it works better for her clients.

     

    “The accessibility issue really shouldn’t be in the law office,” says Feingold, 61. “Disabled people are often the established experts, but in a litigation setting no one will listen to a client with expertise.”

     

    In the structured negotiations, Feingold frequently works with the plaintiffs civil-rights law firm Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, which is known for class actions brought against companies including Walmart, Denny’s and Oracle. Barry Goldstein, who’s now of counsel with the Oakland firm, brought Feingold in to work on a matter after a blind lawyer approached him about the lack of accessible ATMs. Linda M. Dardarian, a partner at the firm, works on many of the negotiations with Feingold.

     

    “We thought we would have a good class action, but we also thought that the ATM technology was new, the ADA was new—so why don’t we try talking to these banks?” says Feingold, a former litigation director with the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund in Berkeley.

     

    “If we brought the issue to a judge, maybe the judge would say, ‘What the hell? Blind people shouldn’t go to an ATM.’ When you bring something to a magistrate, nobody has control. The good thing with structured negotiation is it allows all parties to work out a solution and retain control,” says Feingold, who also wrote a book on the topic, Structured Negotiation: A Winning Alternative to Lawsuits.

     

    Feingold contacted Citibank in 1995, and a preliminary agreement was reached in 1999, with terms that included the ATMs being equipped with text-to-speech screen readers. The final agreement was entered in 2001.

     

    Similar agreements regarding talking ATMs were reached with other financial institutions, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Those discussions led to structured negotiations that involved online banking accessibility, Feingold says.

     

    She’s also done structured negotiations that involve point-of-sale devices at retail checkouts, with businesses such as Target, Dollar General and Trader Joe’s. In the mid-2000s, manufacturers started to make the devices with touch screens. If you wanted to use a debit card and couldn’t see the touch screen, Feingold says, you had to tell the cashier your PIN.

     

    Previously, no major vendor produced integrated point-of-sale devices that included touch screens and keypads, Feingold says. Now, after agreements were reached, they all do.

     

    If a business needs time to get resources together and systems in place, Feingold is understanding, according to Susan Mazrui, AT&T’s director of public policy. But when it’s an issue in which the business is unresponsive, the lawyer will respond accordingly.

     

    “Because she is so kind and gentle, they don’t know she is brilliant and fierce,” says Mazrui, who worked with Feingold on accessible online credit reporting. “She will not back down if she knows that a company just doesn’t want to spend the money or doesn’t want to move.”

     

    A Massachusetts native, Feingold visited Northern California in 1976 when she was a student at Hampshire College and liked it so much that she transferred to the University of California at Berkeley. In 1981, she graduated from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and began her legal career working for the Public Employment Relations Board in California.   At Berkeley, Feingold met her husband, Randy Shaw. Also a lawyer, he co-founded the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and works as its executive director. They have two daughters, who are both teachers in the San Francisco Unified School District.

     

    For fun, Feingold says, she’s been spending time editing, marketing and speaking about her book. “Sounds kind of boring,” Feingold says. “But I’m so glad I’m doing it.”

     

    http://www.abajournal.com/legalrebels/article/lainey_feingold_diability_law_adr/?utm_campaign=sidebar

     

     

     

                                           

  • 09/19/2017 8:42 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Law Sites

    September 6, 2017

    By Robert Ambrogi

     

      

     

     

    In my continuing effort to keep a tally of the states that have adopted the duty of technology competence, I’ve discovered another, Nebraska, which brings the total to 28 states.

     

    The Nebraska Supreme Court adopted the amendment on June 28, 2017.  It amends comment 6 to Nebraska Rule of Professional Conduct § 3-501.1 — the corollary to ABA Model Rule 1.1 on competence — to read as follows:

     

    To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.

     

    The italicized phrase is the same as the language that the ABA recommended in 2012 when it approved a change to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to make clear that lawyers have a duty to be competent not only in the law and its practice, but also in technology.

     

    Here is the full list of states that have adopted the duty of technology competence:

     

     

     

     https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2017/09/another-state-adopts-duty-technology-competence-bringing-total-28.html

     

     

  • 09/19/2017 8:14 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Bloomberg Law

    September 18, 2017

    By Tom Schoenberg and Anders Melin, Bloomberg News

     

     

    The U.S. Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into whether top officials at Equifax Inc. violated insider trading laws when they sold stock before the company disclosed that it had been hacked, according to people familiar with the investigation.

     

    Prosecutors are looking at the stock sales by Equifax Chief Financial Officer John Gamble; President of U.S. Information Solutions Joseph Loughran; and President of Workforce Solutions Rodolfo Ploder, said two people, who asked not to be named because the probe is confidential.

     

    Equifax disclosed earlier this month that it discovered a security breach on July 29. The three executives sold shares worth almost $1.8 million in early August. The company has said the managers didn’t know of the breach at the time they sold the shares.

     

    To run afoul of laws that prohibit insider trading, a seller has to be aware of nonpublic information, said Stephen Crimmins, a former enforcement lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     

    The probe will be handled by the U.S. attorney’s office in Atlanta, where the credit firm’s headquarters is located, said one of the people. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Atlanta declined to comment.

     

    –With assistance from Matt Robinson.

     

     

     https://bol.bna.com/equifax-stock-sales-said-to-be-focus-of-u-s-criminal-probe/

     

     

  • 09/19/2017 7:20 AM | Vincent Yasay (Administrator)

    "Persuasive Legal Writing: From the Bench's Perspective" presented by Alameda County Bar Association (ACBA) on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 5:30p - 7:30p in Oakland, CA. It is free for ACBA members and $150 for non-members. Light snacks provided.


    ACBA Barristers Section presents

    Persuasive Legal Writing: A Perspective From the Bench

    Learn how to write motions and briefs that capture the court's attention. Hear from three current bench officers (one who was also a research attorney for Alameda County), and a current research attorney on how to persuade a busy judge with brevity, simplicity, and clarity. 

    Date:
    October 11, 2017
    5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.

    Location:
    ACBA
    1000 Broadway, Suite 480
    Oakland

    MCLE:
    2 hours general credit

    The Alameda County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider.

    Light snacks provided. If you have dietary restrictions, please plan to bring your own snacks.

    Cost:
    FREE for ACBA Members
    $150 for Non Members

    Please note: there will be a $10 administrative fee if you cannot make the program and do not cancel in advance. A $10 fee will also be assessed for day-of and walk-in registrations.

    To Register:
    Visit www.acbanet.org/Calendar
    Call (510) 302-2201
    Mail check (payable to "ACBA")
       ACBA, Attn: MCLE
       1000 Broadway, Suite 480
       Oakland, CA 94607

    Click here to register

    Speakers:

    Judge James CramerSuperior Court of California, County of Alameda

    Judge Cramer was born and raised in Oakland. He hails from a family of local attorneys, as his father was and his brothers are Alameda County lawyers. Judge Cramer was appointed to the bench on March 27, 2015.  For the 11 years prior to his appointment, he was an Assistant Alameda County Public Defender, handling everything from DUIs to murders alleging special circumstances. For three years, he was also the co-chair of the office research/law and motion department.  Prior to his time with the Public Defender’s Office, he was a research attorney with the Alameda County Superior Court. Other previous experience includes working in civil litigation with a focus on construction contract dispute and as an Alameda County Deputy District Attorney. He is a graduate of Santa Clara University and Santa Clara University School of Law. Judge Cramer is currently assigned to Department 514, a general criminal assignment.  

    Judge Jeffery BrandSuperior Court of California, County of Alameda
    Prior to joining the bench in 2015, Judge Brand was a professor of law at the University of San Francisco School of Law since 1986, where he served as dean from 1999 to 2013. He was an attorney in private practice from 1980 to 1985 and 1974 to 1976. Judge Brand served as an administrative law judge at the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board from 1976 to 1978 and as a deputy public defender at the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office from 1971 to 1974. He was co-founder and editor-in-chief at the Federal Litigator magazine from 1985 to 1995. Brand earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.

    Judge Lupe GarciaSuperior Court of California, County of Alameda
    Prior to joining the bench Judge Garcia was an associate general counsel and senior director for global integrity at Gap Inc. since 2006, where she held several positions since 1999. She was an associate at Lafayette and Kumagai LLP from 1995 to 1999. Garcia earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law.

    Philip Obbard, Senior Legal Research AttorneySuperior Court of California, County of Alameda 


  • 09/19/2017 7:14 AM | Vincent Yasay (Administrator)

    Wednesday, September 27, 2017

    5:30 p.m. - 7:45 p.m.


    Alameda County Bar Association

    1000 Broadway, Suite 480

    Oakland, CA


    Family Law Day of Court Clinic Volunteer Training

    Presented by Volunteer Legal Services Corporation and the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Self-Help & Dispute Resolution Services
     
    At the Family Law Day of Court Clinic (FLDOC), volunteers take referrals from the bench to assist self-represented litigants on the Request for Order (RFO) calendar. Volunteers prepare Findings and Order After Hearing and Reissuances, provide information and referrals to local resources, and explain court procedures such as service of process. The goal is for litigants to leave court with signed, enforceable orders in hand. Volunteers work closely with judicial officers and court staff at each clinic.

    This training will cover how to prepare Findings and Order After Hearing for common legal issues faced by litigants representing themselves in family law cases, including child custody and visitation, child support, and spousal support. We will also discuss reissuances and service of process, issues that come up frequently for pro per litigants on the RFO calendar.


    Volunteer Commitment:

    This training is offered for free in exchange for commitment to volunteer at six Family Law Day of Court sessions in the next year. Training is open to law school graduates and paralegals with family law experience. Experience in family law is not required for attorney volunteers. 



     

    Speakers announced!


    Judge Noël Wise, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
    Blanca Rodriguez, Management Analyst, Self-Help & Dispute Resolution Services, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
    Christine Knowles, Family Law Day of Court Coordinator, Volunteer Legal Services Corporation



    Date and Time:
    Wednesday
    September 27, 2017
    5:30 p.m. - 7:45 p.m.

    Location:
    ACBA
    1000 Broadway, Suite 480
    Oakland

    MCLE:
    2 hours general credit

    The Alameda County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider.

    Cost: $0, with volunteer commitment

    Please note, no food will be provided

    To Register:
    Send the registration form to Christina Wiellette
    By email: christina@acbanet.org;
    By mail: VLSC, Attn - Christina Wiellette
       1000 Broadway, Suite 480
       Oakland, CA 94607; OR
    By fax: (510) 452-2224


  • 09/18/2017 5:02 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Bloomberg Law

    September 15, 2017

    By Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg News

     

     

    Equifax Inc. should stop selling credit-monitoring on its web site and take advantage of confused customers who don’t know they can get the service for free, said a group of attorneys general investigating the company’s massive data breach.

     

    Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, who is helping lead the probe by 32 states, urged the company in a letter Friday to disable links to its fee-based monitoring services until a sign-up for the free service ends. The current cutoff date is Nov. 21 and Jepsen told the company that should be extended at least until Jan. 31.

     

    “We object to Equifax seemingly using its own data breach as an opportunity to sell services to breach victims,” the attorneys general said. “Equifax cannot reap benefits from confused consumers who are likely only visiting Equifax’s homepage because they are concerned about whether the breach affects them and their families.”

     

    The company said last week that hackers accessed sensitive data that included Social Security numbers and names and addresses of as many as 143 million U.S. consumers, as well as customers in Canada. The company said on Friday that some information on as many as 400,000 U.K. customers may also have been hacked.

     

    Marisa Salcines, a spokeswoman for Equifax, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the attorneys general’s letter.

     

     

    https://bol.bna.com/equifax-asked-by-ags-to-stop-selling-monitoring-services/

     

     

     

  • 09/18/2017 5:00 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    Stanford Law School  

    September 13, 2017

    By Gregory Ablavsky

     

     

    Gregory Ablavsky

    Professor Gregory Ablavsky

     

    (This was originally posted on the blog Written Description on September 13, 2017.)

     

     

    In Property, I frequently hedge my answers to student questions by cautioning that I am not an expert in intellectual property. I’m writing on an IP blog today because, with Allergan’s deal with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, IP scholars have suddenly become interested in an area of law I do know something about: federal Indian law.

     

    Two principles lie at the core of federal Indian law. First, tribes possess inherent sovereignty, although their authority can be restricted through treaty, federal statute, or when inconsistent with their dependent status. Second, Congress possesses plenary power over tribes, which means it can alter or even abolish tribal sovereignty at will.

     

    Tribal sovereign immunity flows from tribes’ sovereign status. Although the Supreme Court at one point described tribal sovereign immunity as an “accident,” the doctrine’s creation in the late nineteenth century in fact closely paralleled contemporaneous rationales for the development of state, federal, and foreign sovereign immunity. But the Court’s tone is characteristic of its treatment of tribal sovereign immunity: even as the Court has upheld the principle, it has done so reluctantly, even hinting to Congress that it should cabin its scope. This language isn’t surprising. The Court hasn’t been a friendly place for tribes for nearly forty years, with repeated decisions imposing ever-increasing restrictions on tribes’ jurisdiction and authority. What is surprising is that tribal sovereign immunity has avoided this fate. The black-letter law has remained largely unchanged, narrowly surviving a 2014 Court decision that saw four Justices suggest that the doctrine should be curtailed or even abolished.

     

    So let me now turn to the Allergan deal and briefly discuss its doctrinal and normative implications. First, the doctrinal. I don’t profess any insight into the IP-specific aspects of the dispute, but tribal sovereign immunity is robust. Unlike foreign sovereign immunity, there is no commercial-activity exception to tribal immunity. The lower courts have instead crafted an “arm of the tribe” test to determine if an entity may benefit from the tribe’s immunity, looking toward whether the entity is chartered under tribal law, whether its proceeds serve to further the aims of tribal self-governance, and whether the tribe intended to confer its immunity. Tribal casinos and other commercial enterprises routinely receive the benefit of sovereign immunity under this test, and I assume Allergan’s attorneys were smart enough to engineer the deal accordingly. The Court did carve out a possible workaround last Term in the wonderfully named Lewis v. Clarke when it declined to extend tribal sovereign immunity to a tribal employee sued for damages in his individual capacity. But the Court’s decision said nothing about the argument of the United States as amicus curiae that official immunity should still be available, so this issue remains undetermined. As for waiver, the Court’s jurisprudence holds that the tribe’s intent to relinquish immunity must be “clear.” This principle has generally made lower courts to be reluctant to find constructive waiver, although there is some case law that voluntary participation in bankruptcy proceedings waives tribal immunity. 

     

    Now the normative. Many scholars are not fans of sovereign immunity in general, and their hackles may be raised still further by what may seem like tribes renting their immunity. It’s worth noting that the drug companies are latecomers to this particular scheme: payday lenders have been setting up in Indian country for a while to avail themselves of tribal immunity. There are good reasons to question whether exploiting what outsiders might read as a loophole is ultimately a wise strategic move on tribes’ part. It’s especially risky in an area of law where the federal government’s persistent tendency is to craft blanket policy for all 567 federally recognized tribes despite significant differences among them.

     

    But it’s also worth pausing to think about why a tribe might engage in this particular enterprise. Popular imagination might envision casino riches, but Indian gaming revenue is spread very unevenly, with only a handful of well-situated tribes bringing in large sums. For the majority of reservations, some of the highest poverty and unemployment rates in the nation remain the norm. This reality is inseparable from centuries of colonial dispossession and violence. But it is also the perverse result of federal law, which allows states to tax businesses within Indian country as long as states provide de minimis services. As a result, tribes—often forced onto remote lands—face the choice of imposing double taxation on reservation businesses or foregoing their own tax revenue. Tribal leaders are understandably anxious to make deals that will bring much-needed jobs and money to places that have long lacked both.

     

    If tribal sovereign immunity dramatically distorts patent law, there is a remedy available. Unlike in the state context, Congress can readily use its plenary power to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity in patent law. But I’d also urge IP scholars to look around during their virtual sojourn in Indian country. They might discover that immunity is but a small part of a patchwork of complex laws, many of which disadvantage Native peoples. To lawyers, these areas seem distinct—sovereign immunity seems distant from the criminal law complexities of jurisdiction, for instance, that have contributed both to an epidemic of sexual violence against indigenous women and some of the highest incarceration rates of any racial minority in the nation. But these issues are less much distinct for the people who experience these daily realities, and they help explain why tribal governments are scrounging for resources to try to provide desperately needed services for their citizens.

     

    Greg Ablavsky is an assistant professor of law at Stanford Law School.

     

     

     https://law.stanford.edu/2017/09/13/tribal-sovereign-immunity-and-patent-law/

  • 09/16/2017 7:54 AM | Denise Bashline (Administrator)

    California Courts Newsroom

    September 15, 2017

     

     

     

    judicial council members

    Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye administers the oath to incoming council members in San Francisco.

     

     

    From Left to Right:

    Michael M. Roddy, Superior Court of San Diego County; Judge Harold W. Hopp, Superior Court of Riverside County; Attorney Gretchen M. Nelson; Justice Harry Hull (reappointment), Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District; Attorney Rachel Hill; Clerk/Executive Officer Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District; Commissioner Shama Hakim Mesiwala, Superior Court of Sacramento County; Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas, Superior Court of Santa Clara County; Judge Stuart Rice, Superior Court of Los Angeles County; Presiding Judge C. Todd Bottke (reappointment), Superior Court of Tehama County; and Judge Kevin Brazile, Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

     

     

    Bios of all council members are available here

     

     

     

     http://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/new-members-sworn-in-terms-begin-sept-15-2017

     

     

     

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 

San Francisco Paralegal Association • 1 Sansome St., Ste. 3500 • San Francisco, CA 94104-4448 • (415) 946-8935 • info@sfpa.com