Two Trial Courts in California are closing their courtrooms and furlough staff once a month in an effort to save some money in the states financial crisis. Closing these courts on the third Wednesday of every month for the next fiscal year is supposed to save the state over $18 million dollars.

Local leaders were waiting for the state to coordinate a statewide closure plan to emerge from all of the budget negotiations, but they couldn’t wait any longer.

Los Angeles County Superior Court officials expected to have just 43 of 600 courtrooms open countywide to process restraining orders, in-custody arraignments, juvenile dependency cases and other time-sensitive matters. Ninety-three percent of the court’s 5,000 employees will be furloughed, spokeswoman Mary Hearn said.

The closures have left attorneys like those at the Children’s Law Center scrambling. Wednesday is typically the busiest day of the week for the agency that represents more than 20,000 Los Angeles County children in dependency court. Cases brought into the foster care system on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday must be filed in court by the following Wednesday to meet a three-day statutory deadline.

Just two of 20 dependency courts are expected to be operating in Los Angeles on Wednesday. On top of that, the Children’s Law Center, faced with its own $1.2 million budget cut, will have only a skeleton crew of 20 attorneys working, said Executive Director Leslie Starr Heimov. Other attorneys and staff will be taking a furlough day, she said.

Even though many courtrooms will be closed, LA courthouse doors will remain open so attorneys can file papers. The closure is not considered a holiday and paperwork dropped off by 4:30 will receive filing stamps.

Check out the original article: Los Angeles to Close 557 Courtrooms

RealDealDocs.com is a division of Practice Technologies, Inc. the creators of SmartRules.com. SmartRules provides step by step guides to local rules and civil procedure for state courts & federal courts throughout the country.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Leading Online Legal Document Resource, RealDealDocs.com, Releases UCLA Clinical Study Agreement
RealDealDocs.com is home to over 1 million online legal documents from agreements to contracts for its members to download and print. In this release from RealDealDocs.com, is the Clinical Study Agreement for UCLA.

Los Angeles, CA - RealDealDocs.com is a leading resource for online sample legal documents and has just released and made available to the public (at no charge), the clinical study agreement between the University of California, Los Angeles and Northwest Biotherapeutics Inc.

A clinical study agreement is an agreement defining the relationship of parties engaged in a clinical trial. The terms of the UCLA and Northwest Biotherapeutics clinical study agreement states that UCLA will perform a clinical study entitled “Phase 1 Clinical Trial Evaluating Booster Vaccinations of DCVax®-Brain for Treatment of Glioblastoma.” The agreement goes on to stipulate the terms and conditions for the clinical study agreement including investigator obligations, Northwest Biotherapeutics company obligations, confidentiality, publication, use of UCLA and the Northwest Biotherapeutics company names, inventions, indemnification, insurance and termination.

New medicines are being created and tested at increasing rates. And with the decline in the affordability of health insurance more and more people turn to clinical studies to treat, cure or prevent their ailments. In this case, RealDealDocs.com thought it relevant to release this UCLA clinical study agreement for the education of what the legal obligations and conditions to which these entities are legally bound.
The clinical study agreement between UCLA and Northwest Biotherapeutic Inc. is only one example of the hundreds of clinical study agreements available at RealDealDocs.com and one of the millions of sample legal documents available at the RealDealDocs.com website.

Upwards of 40 from the National Law Journal ‘s top 250 law firms have made use of the RealDealDocs.com technology. The legal documents available at RealDealDocs.com help to lower the amount of time needed to draft a legal agreement. And as a member of RealDealDocs.com, you can edit, save and download these documents in a printer-friendly format for your own use.

The numerous legal documents at RealDealDocs.com are drafted by some of the top law firms that work for Fortune 500 companies, and those that represent small capital companies. Since the RealDealDocs.com sample legal documents have been written by these top law firms in the country, they provide both a relevant work product and an important competitive intelligence about how the top law firms are negotiating and drafting agreements for their clients.

To view the UCLA Clinical Study Agreement click here

To view other Clinical Study Agreements, please visit RealDealDocs.com

Popularity: 1% [?]

As more details roll in regarding the fatal train wreck in Chatsworth on Friday, so does the death count. Killing 25 people, Friday night’s collision was the “deadliest in 15 years.” Chatting with a teen just moments before the crash was the engineer of the Metrolink train.Speaking up about the incident, the teen, Nick Williams, told CBS2 in Los Angeles that he exchanged three text messages with engineer Robert Sanchez (his mentor) Friday afternoon. According to the ocregister.com, Williams got his last text at 4:22 p.m., one minute before the train wreck.

Stating that he’d be meeting up with another passenger train later that day, Sanchez said, “I just replied back, ‘good deal,’ and I just said, ‘That’s cool,’ and I never got a response back,” said Williams.

After a preliminary investigation, it was found that “a Metrolink engineer failed to stop at a red signal and that was the probable cause” of the crash.

Popularity: 4% [?]

There are several subjective misconceptions regarding the role of lawyers in society. Many conceived that a lawyer only deals matters of law at all times.

There were also suspicions that lawyers are expert in the unfamiliar underground world of red tape in government. To some, they unfavorably settle that lawyers are the creator of trouble that aggravated issues.

Where defendant’s net income was higher than plaintiff’s, where plaintiff had the custodial expense of her son, and where defendant’s actions required plaintiff to be involved in substantial judicial processes to enforce her rights, the trial court’s ruling denying plaintiff’s request for fees and costs was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

An order for attorney fees under subsection (b) of this section does not permit the balancing tests normally applicable to the question of attorney fees; instead, under this subsection, the court is simply to decide what the costs and reasonable attorney fees of the prevailing party are and to order them paid by the party found to have failed to comply with the order or judgment without cause or justification. The legislature in tended this result to serve as a sanction against parties in marital cases who willfully disobey court orders. Where husband was found in contempt for failing to comply with a dissolution order, the trial court correctly found that wife was entitled to an award for attorney fees incurred in connection with the enforcement of that order, regardless of husband’s ability to pay. Given that the instant action was brought to enforce the agreement which was made a part of the order of dissolution and that subsection (b) of this section does not require the court to determine the financial abilities of the parties prior to awarding attorney fees in such actions, the trial court was not required to consider the financial ability of petitioner to pay her attorney fees.

A party who must seek court enforcement of the terms of a judgment of dissolution is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, even absent a showing of that party’s inability to pay the fees and the other party’s ability to pay, where the failure to comply with the terms of the judgment is without cause or justification. Subsection (b) is a mandatory provision by which the trial court must, in a child support enforcement proceeding, order the noncustodial parent to pay the custodial parent’s costs and reasonable attorney fees.

Where an ex-husband received a cash disbursement of his pension plan, he should have honored his divorce settlement agreement and divorce decree and paid to his deceased ex-wife estate the portion due her under the agreement; since the estate was obligated to bring suit and appeal to enforce the decree and agreement, the estate of the deceased was entitled to recover attorney fees.

While respondent may not have willfully and contemptuously miscalculated when he multiplied $50 per week by four weeks to arrive at his payment of $200 per month, the respondent failed to pay without cause or justification and therefore was obligated to reimburse petitioner for reasonable attorney fees.

Where the trial court explicitly found that husband’s failure to pay child support was without cause or justification, no finding of wife’s financial circumstances was necessary by the court in order to award her attorney fees pursuant to this section. A party who must use judicial process to enforce rights under and to secure compliance with, the terms of a divorce judgment is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, even absent a showing of the party’s inability to pay.

By: David Siegel

New York City divorce and family law firm handling divorce and family law cases throughout New York City and the surrounding areas. Results driven law firm with experience and skill to handle the most difficult cases. Divorce Lawyers New York

Popularity: 3% [?]