A Decline Before the Dropoff: Bay Area Courts Saw Decreased Activity in Q1 as COVID-19 Changes Took Hold
Recently released statistics from state courts in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Francisco indicate how court closures at the end of March affected the number of civil filings in the first quarter and point to the backlog courts will face as they begin to reopen to non-emergency cases.
May 11, 2020 at 06:00 AM
5 minute read
As COVID-19 court closures that took hold in the last two weeks of March—the last two weeks of the first quarter of the year—led to a dramatic drop in the number of new civil filings seen in three major San Francisco Bay Area courts.
According to data provided by Superior Court officials in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Francisco Counties, noncriminal filings were down significantly for the first three months of 2020 compared to the same period last year.
In San Francisco Superior Court, total filings fell off from 6,310 in the first quarter of 2019 to 5,506 during the same period this year, a 12.7% drop.
In Santa Clara Superior, total noncriminal case filings dropped by nearly 14%, from 10,586 in the first quarter of 2019 to 9,109 in the same period of 2020. Civil filings in Santa Clara dropped even more precipitously, falling by 16.6% from 6,640 to 5,535 year-over-year.
In Alameda County Superior, noncriminal filings excluding appeals fell off by 9.7% from 10,767 in the first quarter of 2019 to 9,719 over the same period in 2020. (Editor's note: Alameda court's data for appeals has been excluded since those numbers did not include filings from March 2020.) The number of unlimited civil filings in Alameda County fell off by nearly 12%, from 2,443 to 2,157 year-over-year.
While the falloff from Q1 2019 to Q1 2020 was dramatic, litigators say that having the state courts limited to only the most urgent civil filings will lead to an even steeper dropoff in the numbers for the second quarter.
"The percentage of filings being down right now is irrelevant to the overall impact on attorneys and their clients," says Micha Star Liberty of the Liberty Law Office in Oakland. "The 30,000 food view is that an entire branch of government has been unable to effectively function at even a minimal level on the civil side."
Liberty, the current president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, the plaintiffs bar's largest statewide membership organization, said that it is "shocking and dismaying" that the court system "at the heart of technology and innovation" has been brought to a crawl by the limitations imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. "There are some judges who are keeping up and doing what they can remotely," she said. "The struggle is to get the presiding judges in all of the counties and the judicial council to work together," she said.
The Judicial Council last month used new powers granted by the Gov. Gavin Newsom to adopt emergency statewide rules that the CAOC and other groups asked for stopping the clock on civil matters filed between April 6 and 90 days after the governor lifts the state of emergency related to COVID-19. The Judicial Council has since taken additional steps to help keep civil suits on track in the state including allowing parties represented by counsel to be served electronically, forgoing the need for in-person service.
Even with those steps, lawyers with active state court dockets are setting trial dates and hearing dates pushed back. Most expect courtrooms to be dedicated to criminal proceedings in the near-term and a significant civil backlog, especially as cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic itself start hitting the dockets.
Morrison & Foerster's Arturo Gonzalez said that given the tolling of the statute of limitations, and the financial hardship many people and companies are experiencing, there is no urgency to filing legal actions at this time. "However, there will likely be a flood of lawsuits later this year when the tolling is lifted, including commercial unlawful detainers," he said.
Warren Metlitzky, a founding partner of San Francisco trial boutique Conrad & Metlitzky, said he expects the volume of COVID-19 related litigation is going to surprise some. "Is there anyone who has a commercial contract or employment contract that wasn't affected by this?" Metlitzky said.
Although he said not all those affected contracts will or should lead to litigation, the act there are "a bunch of people who are struggling and looking for ways to get money—that leads to lawsuits."
Metlitzky said, "When times are hard, I wouldn't be surprised to see filings go up."
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
© 2024 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 All'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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