Law school hosts 9th circuit court for six hearings

by Dave Jones
March 11, 2011

The School of Law’s new Kalmanovitz Appellate Courtroom will live up to its name next week, by hosting an official session of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

UC Davis has never hosted this kind of proceeding — and would not be doing so now, if not for the Kalmanovitz courtroom, part of the law school’s $37 million expansion. The long table at the front of the courtroom is perfect for a panel of appellate judges.

The public is welcome to attend (see "Interested in attending?" below) — and, if the 125 spectator seats fill up, you can join law school faculty members and students in watching a live, closed-circuit telecast on monitors throughout King Hall.

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit is sending a three-judge panel to UC Davis to hear a half-dozen cases from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Tuesday, March 15.

In one of the cases, two California water districts sued the federal government over the operation of the Central Valley Project. Two cases involve claims for asylum, and another involves the sentence that a man received for illegally re-entering the United States after he had been deported. See "What are they hearing?" below.

Each side gets 10 or 15 minutes — max

Each case is allotted no more than a half-hour, with each side given 10 or 15 minutes to make their arguments.

At 2 p.m., the judges are due to participate in a question-and-answer session in the courtroom, with the public welcome to attend. While judges are prohibited from answering questions about pending cases, they can discuss court operations and the decision-making process.

“We are pleased and honored to host this session of the 9th Circuit, one of the nation’s highest and most influential courts,” said Kevin R. Johnson, the law school dean. “This promises to be an enlightening and inspiring experience for our students, and a proud day for UC Davis and the School of Law.”

And probably not the last. The Kalmanovitz courtroom also is expected to host a state appellate panel and the state Supreme Court, whose new chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, is a UC Davis alumna (undergraduate and law degrees).

None of the judges due to hold court here next week is an alumnus, although one of them, William A. Fletcher (a Clinton appointee), has UC Davis connections. Fletcher’s sister, Susan Fletcher French, was a member of the law school faculty in the late 1970s (she now teaches at UCLA); and Katherine Florey, who today is a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, clerked for Judge Fletcher in 2004-05.

The others assigned to the panel for the UC Davis session are Milan D. Smith Jr. of the 9th Circuit and George H. Wu, a U.S. District Court judge who has been assigned to the 9th Circuit. President George W. Bush appointed Smith and Wu.

The 9th Circuit is the nation’s largest appellate district, with 29 active judgeships and a territory that comprises California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

What are they hearing?

Here are excerpts from case summaries provided by the 9th Circuit:

Rodas-Valdez v. Holder — Didiar Rodas-Valdez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the attorney general’s reinstatement of a 1994 order of exclusion. Valdez claims that he is eligible for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, and that the reinstatement order is not valid until his outstanding application for asylum is decided.

Kaur v. Holder — Puneet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, adopting and affirming an immigration judge's denial of her bid for asylum, in a case in which she asserted that she was arrested, beaten and sexually assaulted on account of her political opinion in support of the creation of Khalistan, an independent Sikh state. The board affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of relief on adverse credibility grounds and due to Kaur's failure to present easily available corroborating evidence.

United States v. Biurquez-Zaragoza — Victor Biurquez-Zaragoza appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal re-entry after deportation.

San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority vs. United States — The San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority and the Westlands Water District appeal a District Court order from California, in which the court ruled for the federal government in a case involving water releases from the Central Valley Project. The districts assert that the annual allocation of 9,000 acre-feet under terms of the California Water Quality Control Program should count toward the overall allocation of 800,000 acre-feet annually to fisheries protection.

Mastro v. Momot — Dennis, Michael and Jeffrey Mastro appeal a District Court order from Arizona, in which the court denied their motion to compel arbitration against John Momot, under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Momot v. Mastro — Dennis, Michael and Jeff Mastro appeal a District Court order from Nevada, in which the court enjoined an Arizona arbitration and denied a motion to stay the litigation. John Momot filed this action in Nevada state court, and the Mastros removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Momot alleged fraudulent misrepresentations, forgery and bank fraud in conjunction with the Mastros’ operation of several restaurants to which Momot contributed investment capital. The Mastros and Momot entered into an allocation agreement that contained an arbitration clause. The District Court held that Momot’s claims did not arise from the allocation agreement, and therefore the arbitration clause did not apply.

Interested in attending?

The Kalmanovitz Appellate Courtroom will open at 9:30 a.m. Photo identification is required for entry.

The law school’s website states that “courtroom attire” is required. “Appropriate attire for counsel would be conservative business dress in traditional dark colors. For law students, suitable attire would be slacks-khakis, modest skirts with long or short-sleeved shirt, blouse, polo-golf shirt. Please do not display political buttons.” The following articles of clothing or attire are not permitted: T-shirts with slogans or pictures, shorts, tank tops, hats or caps, and sunglasses.

Purses, bags, backpacks and cameras will not be permitted. The law school will not provide a secured storage area for your belongings, so please make your own arrangements.

Electronic devices (cell phones, laptop computers and the like): They are allowed, under court policy, for note-taking, data communications and Internet access — but not for telephone calls, photographs, or audio or video recording or transmission. Telephone ring tones and other functional sounds produced by devices must be disabled while in the courtroom. Only quiet keyboards may be used in the courtrooms.

Audience members may enter or exit only when the court is not on the bench or in between the cases being heard, and silence must be maintained while the court is in session. No food or drink is allowed inside the courtroom.

Editor's note: Since the original posting of this article, it has been updated with a $37 million figure for the cost of the King Hall expansion.