Commission on Structural Alternatives
for the Federal Courts of Appeals
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544

Re: Comments on October 1988 Tentative Draft Report

Dear Commissioners:

On behalf of the Judicial Advisory Committee for the Eastern District of California, which has been established to continue the functions and activities of the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Group established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 478, I have been asked to submit the accompanying Resolution in response to the Commission's request for comments on its October 1988 Tentative Draft Report. This Resolution, which is self-explanatory, is that of the Committee alone, and does not purport to speak for the Judges of the Eastern District of California, although I am informed and believe that the Judges support the Resolution. Copies of the Resolution, and of this letter, on a diskette formatted for WordPerfect 5.1, are enclosed with this letter.

In addition to the subject-matter of the Resolution, there is one technical matter within the Tentative Draft Report which should be addressed. At page 41, the Tentative Draft Report states that

"in the California state appellate court system, where the intermediate appellate system is organized into geographical districts, the decisions of one court of appeal have no binding precedential effect outside that court's jurisdiction."

To the extent that this statement refers to the fact that decisions of one California district court of appeal are not binding upon another California district court of appeal, it is correct. Decisions of a district court of appeal in one geographical district are binding, however, upon superior (trial) courts located in another geographical district, at least in the absence of relevant precedent from the court of appeal of the district in which the superior court sits. In Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450, 455, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937 (1962), the California Supreme Court states that

"Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court."

It is tempting to treat as identical the geographically binding precedential force of decisions of federal courts of appeals upon district courts throughout the nation, and of California district courts of appeal upon superior (trial) courts throughout the state. They are not identical, however. A federal court of appeals decision has binding effect only upon district courts within that circuit, whereas California district courts of appeals decisions have binding effect upon all superior courts within the state, regardless of location. The Tentative Draft Report's misapprehension of California law in this regard does not and should not affect the Commission's recommendations. The force of those recommendations would be weakened, however, by inclusion within the Final Report of a misstatement of California law.

Very truly yours,

Richard W. Nichols

RWN/aep
Enclosures

cc: Norman A. Hile, Chairman
Members, Judicial Advisory Committee
Hon. William B. Shubb, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Eastern District of California