Calif. Justices Asked to Clarify What Recusal Means for 'Past or Future Proceedings' in Judge Pay Case
Skadden's William Casey, part of a team that represented judges who won $36 million in back pay for California judges in lower courts, stopped short of challenging the recusal of the six justices.
October 18, 2018 at 07:11 PM
3 minute read
Updated at 8:15 pm with the list of judges chosen to consider the case.
Lawyers seeking back pay for current and retired California state judges have asked the state's high court to clarify that lower court rulings in the case remain valid even though all six justices recused themselves earlier this week—presumably because the case could affect their own pocketbooks.
Lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, representing retired Second District Court of Appeal Justice Robert Mallano, previously won class certification from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle for about 1,800 retirees and 1,600 sitting judges in 2105 and a subsequent 2016 judgment from Berle, a potential class member, of back pay, plus 10 percent interest.
In a letter sent to the Supreme Court Wednesday, Skadden's William Casey wrote that he didn't challenge the justice's decision to recuse. But he did ask the court to “clarify that its order, which appears limited to 'the present posture of the above-captioned matter,' does not call into question any past or future proceedings by Judge Berle or other members of the fiduciary. “
A unanimous Second District panel last year rejected the state's appeal, finding nothing in state law “constrains or prohibits the controller from fulfilling its ministerial duty to pay judicial salary increases.”
in Wednesday's letter, Skadden's Casey contended that while the state maintains that it has paid judges in keeping with the lower court orders in the case, neither the plaintiffs nor the court have been able to review the state's method for compliance while its petition for the state Supreme Court has been pending. That leaves open, he contended, the possibility that even the newly minted judges that the Supreme Court has indicated should hear the case could be affected by the case's outcome.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued an order noting that six judges—all of whom have taken the bench since July 1, 2007—were chosen to act as justices in the case. The group will consider the petition for review and, if review is granted, decide the case. The roster includes Judges Brett Bianco, Bruce Brodie, and Steve Cochran of Los Angeles Superior Court, Judges Andre De La Cruz and Scott Cooper of Orange County Superior Court, and Judge Teresa Caffese of San Francisco Superior Court.
Read the Skadden letter:
Read more:
The Entire California Supreme Court Recused in Judicial Pay Case
Skadden Wins Appeal That Could Mean Extra Pay for Calif. Judges
What's Taking Jerry Brown So Long to Pick a Supreme Court Justice?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBuchalter Hires Longtime Sheppard Mullin Real Estate Partner as Practice Chair
Reality TV Couple and Pacific Palisades Neighbors Sue City of Los Angeles Over Loss of Homes to Fire
3 minute readIn Resolved Lawsuit, Jim Walden Alleged 'Retaliatory' Silencing by X of His Personal Social Media Account
No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250