Los Angeles City Pulls the Plug on Photo Cop

On July 27, 2011, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted against renewing the City's red light camera contract with American Traffic Solutions, which contract expires July 31, 2011. This vote come on the heels of Los Angeles Police Commission's vote on June 7 to end the photo enforcement program. The contract which costs the City $2.7 Million a year, has been losing $1.5 Million a year. Red light cameras have been used in Los Angeles since 2004, during which period some 180,000 photo citations have been issued. Currently, some 65,000 unpaid photo tickets are outstanding, and LA City Council members blame the losses on Los Angeles Superior Court's inability to enforce photo citations.

The Los Angeles Police Department's web page on Automated Photo Red Light Enforcement Program states: "Running a red light is a serious problem. Nationally, approximately 1,000 people die each year, and another 200,000 are injured as a result of a motorist running a red light...." Although the statistics showed red light cameras had contributed to increased saftey, the current financial concerns were a driving factor in doing away with red light cameras; the $446 fine per ticket could not cover the program's costs.

Red light cameras have also been referred to as "red light safety camera," "intersection safety camera," or just "photo cop." This technology was initially developed in the Netherlands in 1965, and has been used for traffic enforcement in Israel going back to 1969. The technology first came to use in the U.S. in the 1990's, and has been used in 26 states and the District of Columbia. Red light cameras have been the subject of various legal challeges in the United States, including those based on due process, passenger privacy, and the high costs of fines. Althouth the City of Los Angeles will cease further use of red light cameras, neighboring cities such as Culver City and Beverly Hills will continue their programs.

The materials for this blog were gathered from the following sources LAPD web site, Wikipedia, Los Angeles Times, Marvista Patch, and the Washington Post. For additional information, run a search on Google.

Robin Mashal is a California litigation attorney. He can be reached at (310) 286-2000.

New Activities in BP Litigation Over Mexican Gulf Oil Spill

On April 20, 2010, an oil rig operated on behalf of BP at the Gulf of Mexico erupted, causing the largest, most publicized oil spill in recorded history. The economic losses and envioronmental damages were felt in the gulf states and beyond. Some 350 lawsuits were filed, which were eventually consolidated into a multi-district litigation lawsuit (MDL No. 2179) before the Honorable Judge Carl J. Barbier in the United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Case number 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS.

April 20, 2011, the anniversary of the incident, saw a large amount of litigation activity. Several pleadings were filed on April 20, 2011:

First, BP filed a Cross-Claim against Cameron International Corporation ("CIC"), the manufacturer and maintainer of the “blowout preventer” which was used at the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on the allegations in the Cross-Claim, BP is a co-lessee of the Macondo Prospect. BP hired Transocean Inc. to drill an exploratory well for oil and gas. Transocean used the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. CIC provided the "blowout preventer" unit and maintenance on it. The Cross-Claim alleges that CIC provided an unreasonably dangerous product, that CIC negligently maintained the blowout preventer, the CIC negligently modified the blowout preventer, for contribution, suborogation, and apportionment of liability.

Second, BP filed a Cross-Complaint against Transocean Ltd. and related entities. The Cross-Complaint alleges that Transocean was the owner and operator of Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit, that on April 20, 2010 the unit exploded and caught fire and it sank two days later, causing an oil spill that continued till July 15, 2010. The Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, unseaworthiness, negligence, contribution, suborgation, and declaratory judgment against Transocean.

Finally, BP filed an original Complaint against Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. This action is brought in admiralty, and is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Case number 4:11-cv-1526. The complaint states that it is filed "as a protective companion action" to the two pleadings referenced above, and alleges fraudulent conduct, fraudulent concealment, negligence, contribution and suborgation causes of action.

The Oil Polution Act of 1990, legislated largely in response the the Exxon Valdez incident, provides certain liability limits for oil spill damages. Section 1004 of this Act provides:

"The liability for tank vessels larger than 3,000 gross tons is increased to $1,200 per gross ton or $10 million, whichever is greater. Responsible parties at onshore facilities and deepwater ports are liable for up to $350 millon per spill; holders of leases or permits for offshore facilities, except deepwater ports, are liable for up to $75 million per spill, plus removal costs. The Federal government has the authority to adjust, by regulation, the $350 million liability limit established for onshore facilities."

Plaintiffs' lawyers have been concerned that BP may rely on the above provision to limit its liabilities to only $75 million.

Robin Mashal is a California civil litigation attorney. He may be reached at (310) 286-2000.

Tsunami and the Law

When great disasters such as Tsunamis hit, they tend to dominate the news on every channel such as been the case with the recent Japanese tsunami. This large tsunami which was caused by an earthquake in the Pacific Ocean near Japanese shores, measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale, drove large waves inland, causing people, vehicles and buildings to be washed away, and causing substantial damage to the Japanese nuclear facilties.

Tsunami is a Japanese phrase which literally means "ocean waves." In English literature, this phenomenon is sometimes referred to as a "seismic sea wave" or a "tidal wave." It is often caused by submarine earthquakes which occur less than 30 miles (50 kilometers) beneath the ocean floor, although it may also be caused by submarine volcanic eruptions or submarine landslides.
This article focusses on the legal ramifications of a tsunami. Although there may not be a per se body of law on tsunamis, the law can perhaps be guided from the related elements--earthquakes and water waves--around which a developed body of law exists.

California is an earthquake prone state and California's west coast borders the Pacific Ocean. However, earthquake insurance is not automatically included in homeowners' insurance policies. There are porperty owners who take the risk of not purchasing the earthquake coverage. In 1994, when the great Northridge earthquake occured, a large number of properties suffered structural damages. Those who did not have insurance coverage were forced to pay for the damages out of their own pockets, or simply abandon their properties. The Japanese 9.0 magnitue "megathrust" was many times larger that the Northridge 6.8 magnitude earthquake. What if (God forbid) that magnitude tsunami were to hit the California coasts? What would the uninsured do? Better yet, is tsunami damage even covered under earthquake policies? Would it be covered under flood insurance policies?

Tsunami's often exert such a large force that fundamentally affect the structure of the Earth. Due to the recent tsunami, the axis of the Earth has shifted, and the main island of Japan has moved approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) closer to the United States' west coast. The question is, who lost those 8 feet of land? Altough I don't believe this question has ever been legally addressed, a similar issue received substantial attention in early American law. During the 18th and 19th Centuries, many relied on waterways as a transportation source and water source. Land that bordered on water was substantially more valuable, and hence, land was often subdivided in way that each parcel would receive water rights (so-called "riperian rights"). However, water tends to change course over a period of time, resulting in phonomena referred to as accession and avulsion. "Accession" is when the water leaves deposits on a shore, and "avulsion" is when water washes away soil from a shore. As a result, water may move outside the borders of one land and move further inside another land. American courts addressing such disputes often ruled to readjust the property lines to the center of the current waterway, therefore allowing all lands to maintain water access.

The recent tsunami caused large damages to the Japanese nuclear power plants. Fear of nuclear leakage not only caused several Japanese cities to turn into ghost towns, they also raised panic amongst people living as far away as California. People wondered whether such debris can truly travel so far away, and if they do, can they truly pose a danger to California residents? If these fears are confirmed, would there be any legal recourse? I am not aware of any case law on point, although existing cases may lead the way by analogy. Traditionally, the cause of action for "trespass" dealt with visible objects travelling from one boundary to another. An example would have been on person's cattle crossing over to a neighbor's farm without permission. By contrast, a cause of action for "nuisance" traditionally dealt with invisible matters, such as excessive noise from a neighboring land. In Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. v. American Cyanamaid Co., 916 F.2d 1174 (7th Cir. 1990), Judge Posner set a new standard by allowing a neighboring landowner to sue freight carrier for trespass concerning invisible gas fumes that travelled to his land as a result of derailment. By analogy, California residents may have a cause of action against the Japanese government for trespass, should sufficient nuclear particles reach their lands from the Japanese reactors.

An interesting question may arise if a tsunami moves a part of the shore under water, or washes additional soil ashore causing a distance between the shore and what used to be beachfront properties. Would the courts extend the old case law to such cases?

For additional information refer to articles by CNN, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Associatged Press, MyDesert.com, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Wikipedia. For additional information run a search on Google.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney. He can be reached at (310) 286-2000.

Robin Mashal is named to the 2011 Rising Stars List of Southern California Super Lawyers

I am honored to be named on the 2011 Rising Stars list of the Southern California Super Lawyers magazine. Less than 2.5 percent of attorneys receive this distinction each year.

I have been a member of the California State Bar since December 1999. During my 11 years as a licensed attorney, I have fought zealously to represent the interests of my clients. I received my bachelor of science degree in Accounting from the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business in 1994. I went on to earn a J.D. from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, where I was a Production Editor of the Loyola Entertainment Law Journal and was selected to the Dean's Honor List.

"Rising Stars" and "Super Lawyers" are registered marks of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters is an international information company, which was formed when Thomson Corporation purchased Reuters in 2008. The company's shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: TRI) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TRI). One of Thomson Reuters' subsidiaries is West (formerly, West Publishing) which publishes a broad range of legal, business and regulatory materials. Many legal professionals rely on West's materials, including its federal and state court reporter systems, and the online research materials on Westlaw. For additional information visit the web sites of Thomson Reuters, Super Lawyers, West, and Wikipedia.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney, and a partner at the law firm of Hong & Mashal LLP. Mr. Mashal has been admitted to the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. He can be reached by phone at (310) 286-2000.

Your Cell Phone, Your Text Messages, and the California Law

The use of cellular phones and PDA's is becoming more and more prevalent, and the amount information stored in them is expanding exponentially. This articles discusses some recent legal developments in this area.

In a recent decision in the case of The People vs. Gregory Diaz, the California Supreme Court upheld a criminal conviction based on a warrantless search of the suspect's cellular phone incident to his arrest. The Ventura County police had been surveilling a drug deal though a wire worn by a police informant. After the drug deal went through, police officers pulled over the drug dealer and arrested him. At the time of the custodial arrest, police found some drugs and a cell phone on the dealer's person. When the officers interviewed the dealer at the precinct he first denied the drug deal. But when the officers showed him the text message on his cell phone indicating the drug price, he admitted to the deal. Later, the dealer moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of illegal search and seizure under Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the California High Court upheld the search and the evidence found.

During the past few years, the California legislature has enacted several laws to respond to the growing use of wireless communication devices (text message) and wireless telephones (cell phone). Effective July 1, 2008, California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 prohibits all drivers from text messaging while operating a motor vehicle. Effective January 1, 2009, California Vehicle Code Section 23123 prohibits all drivers from using a cellular phone while operating a motor vehicle, although drivers 18 years or older may use hands free devices. Finally, California Vehicle Code Section 23124 prohibits drivers under the age of 18 from text messaging or using cell phones while driving, even if they have a "hands free" device, with the exception of some emergency uses. For additional information, visit the web site of the California DMV.

Most people know that their cell phone has a global positioning system (GPS) that would allow the phone company to track where the cell phone is located at any point in time. Many do not realize, however, that the photographs taken by the cell phone will embed on them the GPS coordinates of the location. Therefore, this so-called "geo-tag" information may inadvertently give away a person's private information such as their residence address. Some commenators have raised concerns about these hidden codes embedded on photographs, and their effect on privacy laws.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney, and a partner at the law firm of Hong & Mashal LLP. Mr. Mashal has been admitted to the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. He can be reached by phone at (310) 286-2000.

Chief Justice Ronald George Steps Down from the California Supreme Court

Ronald M. George has announced that he will step down as the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, effective midnight January 2, 2011, after spending 38 years on the bench. "Reflection convinced me now is the right time--while I am at the top of my game--to leave while the proverbial music still plays," Justice George announced.

Justice Ronald Marc George is a native of Beverly Hills. He was born March 11, 1940. After graduating from Beverly Hills High School in 1957, he attended Princeton University where he earned a B.A. from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. In 1964, he earned a Juris Doctor from Stanford Law School.

Justice George started his judicial career as he was appointed to the Los Angeles Municipal Court by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1972. In 1977, he was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Edmund Brown, Jr. In 1987, he was appointed to the California Court of Appeals by Governor George Deukmejian. In 1991, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of the State of California by Governor Pete Wilson. On March 28, 1996, he was appointed as the Twenty-Seventh Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California, which position he holds to date.

Justice George is well-known for authoring California Supreme Court's 2008 opinion the case of In re Marriage Cases, case number S147999. In this controversial opinion, the Court struck down existing California law which limited marriage as to one between a man and a woman. This decision provided authority for gay marriages, but it was shortly overturned by Proposition 8.

As the head of the California Judiciary, Justice George consolidated the Municipal Courts and Superior Courts. As well, he created self-help services for people who could not afford to hire attorneys. He also urged that courts provide language interpreters for those who do not speak English.

Justice George is a prolific writer. He has been the author of West Publishing Co.'s California Criminal Trial Judge's Benchbook in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. As well, he has authored several law review articles, including Access to Justice in Times of Fiscal Crisis, 40 Golden Gate L. Rev. 1 (2009), Achieving Impartiality in State Courts, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1853 (2009), and Challenges Facing an Independent Judiciary, 80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1345 (2005).

Justice George is married, and has three sons. He enjoys hiking, which has taken him to the Sierras, the Himalayas and the Swiss Alps.

The materials for this weblog were gathered from various sources including articles on San Francisco Chronicle, LA Weekly, USA Today, Metropolitan News Enterprise, Judicial Council of California, Wikipedia, and The Miami Herald. Photograph courtesy of E. Patrick Morris and EPM Photographics. For additional information you may conduct a search on Google.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney, and a partner at the law firm of Hong & Mashal LLP. Mr. Mashal has been admitted to the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. He can be reached by phone at (310) 286-2000.

The Los Angeles Superior Court, Then and Now

The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (sometimes referred to as the "Los Angeles Superior Court," the "L.A. Superior Court," or "L.A.S.C.") is the largest unified trial court in the United States of America.

California's judicial history has taken a long time to shape. At the time California was a province of Mexico, the Los Angeles pueblo was governed by the "Alcalde" judicial system. California became a U.S. state in 1849. In 1851 the California legislators enacted the Judiciary Act, which legislation divided California into "districts." One such district encompassed the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego. As California's population grew (partially due to the influx created by the California Gold Rush), the state government and judicial system proved inadequate.

A Constitutional Convention was called in 1877 which led to the adoption of a new state Constitution in 1879. The new Constitution revamped California's judicial system, by creating a Supreme Court, District Courts of Appeal and Superior Courts. A Superior Court was established for each state County, and hence, the L.A. Superior Court was born in 1879. In 1880, the County of Los Angeles had a population of 33,381 people; that year, 633 actions were filed in the L.A. Superior Court.

Initially, the Los Angeles Superior Court was housed in a humble adobe structure on Main Street, but due to space shortage many proceedings were held in nearby office buildings, hotel rooms and private residences in Downtown Los Angeles. The "Clock Tower Courthouse", was the first permanent courthouse, which came into use in 1861.

In 1887, the Los Angeles Superior Court started construction of the "Red Sandstone Courthouse" which building was completed in 1891 at a total cost of $518,810. The Red Sandstone Courthouse (sometime referred to as the Los Angeles County Courthouse no. 3) is depicted in the old color postcard shown on this page. Due to the earthquake structural damage this building suffered, it was condemned in 1933. The Red Sandstone Courthouse was demolished in 1936, and currently the Criminal Courts building occupies that site.

Los Angeles Superior Court has come a long way from its humble beginnings. Today, the L.A. Superior Court operates 50 courthouses, which contain nearly 600 courtrooms. It has some 5,400 employees, and operates at a budget of $850 Million annually. The technolgically advanced facilities allow online access to case summaries and images of filed documents, and attorneys can appear in many hearings telephonically through CourtCall.

Today, the County of Los Angeles holds a population of 9.8 million, which is nearly one-fourth the total population of the State of California. The City of Los Angeles with a population of 3.8 million is the most populous city in the State of California, and the most populous city in the United States.

The materials for this blog were gathered from various sources including the Los Angeles Superior Court, Loyola Marymount University Library, Pacific Coast Architecture Database, United States Census Bureau, Wikipedia, and the book Lawyers of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Bar Association, 1959). For additional information run a search on Google.

Robin Mashal is a Los Angeles business attorney, and a partner at the law firm of Hong & Mashal LLP. Mr. Mashal has been admitted to the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. He can be reached by phone at (310) 286-2000.