A tour of Department 1: Inside the civil division's nerve center with Judge Riff

 The following is an interview of Supervising Judge of the Civil Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lawrence P. Riff. The interviewer is the Division's Assistant Supervising Judge, Virginia Keeny.

Q: Judge Riff, you've been the SJ of the Civil Division for about four months and sit in the famed Department 1 (which I'll call D1) of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. What have you learned so far?

A: That I had no idea about the variety and complexity of the role of D1, even though over the past 43 years, I handled hundreds and tried dozens of cases in LA County as a lawyer and a judge. And I learn more every day.

Q: We'll find out more about that soon. But first, why is D1 on the fifth floor of Mosk?

A: Great question. D1 is seemingly far from the "hall of power" located on the second floor of Mosk where we find the Presiding Judge's suite, the PJ's ceremonial courtroom, D2 (the master calendar department for the Family Law Division), and D4 (the master calendar department for the Probate Division.) D1 is all by itself up on the fifth floor.

The reason is historical. D1 was once the master calendar department for the LA County Municipal Court, prior to court consolidation in 2000. D1 is a huge courtroom, designed to be packed with anxious lawyers and litigants awaiting an assignment of their matter to an open Muni court courtroom. Reflecting its original purpose, D1 does not have a jury box, by the way--which is not stopping me from trying jury cases in D1.

Q: Are there any historical landmarks from the old Muni Court days still left?

A: To be sure. There is an entire hallway in the back of the D1 suite packed with portraits of Supervising Judges of the former Municipal Court, going back well into the early 20^th century. There are pictures on the wall of many of our current and former judicial colleagues. Come up and take a look: there's Malcolm Mackey; there's Fred Shaller; there's Aviva Bobb; and many more.

Q: It's nice to have those portraits on the wall.

A: It is. And in the D1 courtroom, there is a line of former Civil SJ's portraits on the wall. These include Lee Edmon, Elihu Berle, Carolyn Kuhl, and Dan Buckley. It's humbling sitting in D1 having those giants of our court looking down on me. More than once with some knotty problem before me, I've thought, "Hmm, I wonder what Judge Kuhl would have done?"

Q: D1 is still a master calendar department, right?

A: Mostly right. D1 is a part-time complex civil department in that there is an inventory of civil complex cases that are assigned to me.

But its Job 1 is as the master calendar department for the large and complicated Civil Division with its 150+ judicial officers. The principal feature of this function is the assignment of cases to a dedicated trial court every day. D1 receives hundreds of trial-ready cases each month needing an open trial department.

D1 also hears a unique set of motions and matters relegated to D1 by our local rules or our customs and practices. D1 is also a "court of last resort" in the sense that when some unicorn presents itself, and no one knows what else to do with it, it gets sent to D1. I like that part of the job because I never know what I might see, and it's usually a pretty challenging issue.

Q: Do you have an example?

A: Sure. The other day, a problem had worked its way up to D1 because it turned out that a lawyer could not properly file a particular lawsuit in any courthouse in the county under our filing rules found on our civil cover sheet addendum. When that lawyer applied the algorithm on that document, which directs where a particular case must or may be filed, the resulting answer was: nowhere. Without a doubt venue was proper in LA County, but under the cover sheet addendum there was seemingly no proper place for filing.

Q: So what happened?

A: Well, you know, Judge Keeny, because you were there. We looked at each other, we noted that something was clearly amiss, and working with our outstanding Operations Manager, Lucille Cortez, we produced a solution so that cases falling into that category could get filed. And then you undertook a major initiative, working with the top managers of Court Operations, including the Chief Deputy, Deni Butler, to do a top-to-bottom review of our cover sheet addendum to ensure that it is clear, workable and consistent with our local rules.

Q: What are some of the other unique responsibilities of D1?

A: I'll start with case reassignments, something I do every day. There are many reasons why cases need to be reassigned, such as a judicial recusal or a CCP 170.6 peremptory challenge. The actual reassignment in those situations is done automatically and randomly "on the wheel" (really a computer program), but I examine the purported reason for the proposed reassignment to ensure that reassignment is the correct action. Usually, it is but not always.

Another example is cases that are filed as provisionally complex, but the Assistant Supervising Judge of Complex, Judge Jessner, declines to accept the case into the complex court program at Spring Street. Another is a case that looks on first blush to be a CEQA case but actually isn't, or vice versa. Another is remittiturs from the Court of Appeal to a judicial officer who is no longer on our court.

And then there are the motions heard in D1.

Q: Tell us more about that.

A: Little understood by court users in the community is that our court has a cross-cutting leadership model. Each of the five divisions of our court has a Supervising Judge with county-wide responsibilities. But also, each of the geographic districts of our court has a Supervising Judge. So, there is a Supervising Judge of the Civil Division (that's me) but, functionally, there is also a Supervising Judge of the civil judicial officers in the Central Division (that's also me). I wear two hats. Now, to the motions.

First, motions to transfer civil cases between districts. It is good policy, in my view, to have a single judge making those determinations in order to enhance consistency and to avoid forum shopping. Often these motions turn on convenience of the witnesses and "interests of justice" kinds of concerns, and are easy decisions. But equally often, the motion is highly controverted.

Second, motions for reconsideration of the granting of a 170.6 challenge. D1 hears these for matters arising in the Central Division, the theory being that the judge who granted the 170.6 is "unavailable" because, well, they are disqualified. These motions have almost an appellate quality to them. Usually, the issue is pretty straightforward and the ruling is upheld. But sometimes there is a de novo review of a question of law, such as whether the case in which the 170.6 was filed is actually a "continuation" of an earlier case where the party had already used its 170.6 challenge. These motions are highly controverted by definition. The party which did not file the 170.6 challenge needs to care enough to bring the reconsideration motion.

Third, a notice of related case (not really a motion) filed in a civil case and either a family law or probate case. D1 decides these unless both cases are filed exclusively in a district other than Central. The questions are whether to relate the cases and, if so, to which court should the related cases be assigned: civil, family or probate? This is how a civil case can end up in a family law department, for example.

Fourth, motions challenging a denial to relate cases. For D1, the issue boils down to the efficient use of court resources and the risk of inconsistent rulings. Note that a judge has already decided not to relate the cases and D1 is being asked to overturn that decision. I employ a "clear abuse of discretion" standard and rarely are these decisions changed. One might think that whether cases are related should not be very controversial. On this point, I encourage lawyers to understand that the words "relate," "consolidate," and "coordinate" pertain to very different procedural outcomes. Relating cases neither consolidates nor coordinates them.

 Fifth, a motion to reconsider any prior order of D1. This arises with respect to vexatious litigant issues, which I'll talk about in a minute.

Sixth, a motion to coordinate non-complex cases filed in different counties where the motion seeks to transfer a case or cases to the Central District. It is not widely understood that non-complex cases filed in more than one country can be coordinated and the coordination does not involve the Judicial Council or result in a JCCP.

Q: Are you done? Are there other matters unique to D1?

A: I'm not done. I rule on applications for search warrants for certain agricultural inspections where there is a threat of vermin infestations. Unique and important. The affidavits in support of those warrant applications can really grab your attention. Have you ever heard of spongy moths? If not, you can thank the food and ag vermin control folks for doing their job.

D1 also rules on voter confidentiality petitions and all "Safe at Home" name changes for the Central District, a program operated by the California Secretary of State. Last for now, D1 hears motions to vacate judgments or to reconsider orders made by judicial officers in the Central Division who are no longer "available" to hear such a motion. Usually because the former judge has retired.

Q: You mentioned vexatious litigants. How is D1 involved?

A: Any judicial officer may declare a person to be a vexatious litigant upon an appropriate motion. Such person is then identified on a state-wide "vex lit" list (as it is commonly called) maintained by the Judicial Council. If the person so designated then wants to file "new litigation" in LA County, D1 must approve that filing.

Q: What goes into that determination?

A: The basic inquiry is whether the proposed litigation has "merit" which in turn comes down to whether there is a cognizable claim stated, evidentiary support and the determination that the proposed claim is not being brought to harass anyone. I take these applications very seriously because they determine whether the courthouse is or is not open to members of our community seeking redress for a claimed wrong. Barring them at the front door might be a genuine denial of access to justice. This cannot be done lightly. 

Q: How many such applications do you see per week?

A: Between five and ten. We prepare a comprehensive written order that is served upon the applicant to explain whether the new litigation may or may not proceed. When the answer is "no," the order normally explains that the applicant may resubmit the application with a clearer explanation or more evidentiary support, and always reminds the applicant that an attorney may file the new litigation.

Q: Anything else on vexatious litigants?

A: Yes. Sometimes, a person on the vex lit list wants to get off the list to avoid the requirement that the proposed new litigation be reviewed by D1. In theory, that request must be presented to the judicial officer who made the original vex lit determination, but in most cases that judicial officer is no longer on the court. Many of these determinations are decades-old. In that situation, the application is brought in D1.

Q: What's the bottom line there?

A: That it is not so easy to get on that list, but once on, it's even harder to get off. The law is pretty clear on the showing necessary: remorse for the former conduct, steps taken to redress the harm caused, and basically a convincing showing of "lesson learned" and "it won't happen again."

Q: Who works in D1?

A: Some real pros. Our Judicial Assistant is Cecilia ("Cecy") Guerrero. Given all the motions, case reassignments, the phone ringing all day long, lots of people dropping in--often self-represented litigants who are confused and sometimes agitated--and trial assignments, we usually have a second JA in the department as well, just to keep up with the work. We also have Court Attendant, Rosalie ("May") Cruz, who handles much of the calendaring and the flow of filings, and often serves as an interface with the public. It is a very busy place from a court operations standpoint.

The public-facing folks working in D1 understand well that they are ambassadors for our court and for the Civil Division, and "courteous, respectful and dignified" are their middle names.

Next, there's Laura Garcia, the D1 Trial Coordinator. She works with me, again all day long, in getting trial-ready cases assigned to an open courtroom, whether a two-day UD trial or a five-week preference mesothelioma asbestos case. We normally speak between two and ten times per day as we work through our three-dimensional chess board.

Q: What do you mean by that?

A: I'll put it this way: there are cases you know are ready to go out, cases that you think will be ready later in the day to go out but which will have a statutory preference so you need to save a courtroom for them, and cases that will be ready to start in, say, a week but need to be assigned today. So, there is a lot of "put the potatoes in the oven an hour before the chicken is done" kind of planning.

We are keeping constant tabs on well more than 20 courtrooms that are candidates for a trial assignment as to whether they are in trial and, if so, when that trial is likely to end; whether they will be in trial soon on account of an earlier assignment; and when the department will be dark on an upcoming court day. That's a lot to keep in mind, and it is changing constantly.

On top of that, litigants usually have their CCP 170.6 challenges intact for any trial assignment that might be made, and it is good when assigning a case for trial to have the available options in mind in the event the assigned judge is papered. So, how one manages timing and sequencing of those assignments with all those variables is at least as much art as science.

Next, we have an excellent Research Attorney, Sean Joyce. Sean has been working in D1 for many years and is a true subject matter expert on the arcane matters that find their way to D1. He's a fine writer and a prodigious worker. Somehow, he keeps up with the fast-moving conveyor belt.

Q: Can you explain what is going on in D1 concerning so-called "long cause" cases?

A: Gladly. We have made changes.

Let's start at the beginning. The basic model of our unlimited civil departments is the IC ("independent calendaring") court. A case is assigned to an IC department where it is managed from cradle to grave, including trial proceedings. But there are rare--and I emphasize rare--times when there is a good reason to take a trial matter from an IC courtroom and send it to a dedicated trial courtroom. The division now operates about twenty such dedicated trial courts. They exist principally to take trial matters from our PI Hub courts, our UD Hub courts, and our asbestos JCCP, none of which are set up to handle jury trials.     

Historically, the purported good reason to reassign a case from an IC court to a dedicated trial court was the length of the evidentiary presentation of the trial. In the past, a case that would require one hundred hours--later raised to one hundred twenty hours--of evidence could be eligible for assignment to one of five specialized long cause courtrooms. I note that a great many of our IC judges never sought to have a case sent to "long cause" but instead would try the case, even if it promised to require five or six weeks of trial.

The former procedure for a case to be considered for a long cause assignment engendered very substantial delays measured in months and sometimes well more than a year. First, D1 often required multiple re-submissions of pretrial documents. Second, once the case was accepted by D1 for assignment to long cause, the case was placed in "long cause inventory" awaiting further handling.

We revamped the system. We eliminated the distinction between a dedicated trial court and a long cause trial court so that, now, many more courtrooms are available to handle all cases coming through D1. Moreover, the protocols for D1's considering assigning a case to a dedicated trial court are now very transparent. They are posted on the D1 department information page on the court's website.

Q: What's the bottom line for lawyers to know?

A: Three things. First, that they need to have a case truly trial ready in the IC court before D1 will entertain a request for assignment to a dedicated trial court. That means at issue, discovery complete, no pending motions except trial MILs. Second, that the parties need to have exhausted settlement prospects by having had a meaningful mediation or MSC. Third, that first-chair trial counsel will need to come see me face-to-face in D1 to discuss the details of the case, including expected duration and settlement efforts. At that hearing I may set time limits for the trial.

I am trying to keep it very real, with clear and open communication with the lawyers and the judges of the Division. So far, it seems that about half the time, it becomes pretty clear that with reasonable time limits imposed on the parties, the case is readily manageable in the IC court--and the IC judge agrees. But when there is a good reason to get a case to a dedicated trial court, we are making that assignment to a date certain--in days or weeks, not months.

Q: What do you see are the effects of these changes?

A: It's only been a couple of months. But cases are moving far faster in and out of D1. And counsel seem pretty happy with these new protocols.

Q: What D1 concerns are keeping you up at night?

A: I have a pretty full anxiety closet but I'll identify the top two.

First, that many of our judicial officers are working at a pace, handling the increased amounts of work assigned to them, that is sometimes leaving them drained. Unlimited Civil filings are up about 20% from 2023 to 2024 and 23% in Limited Civil, which include our UD, small claims and collections courtrooms. While we have materially more judicial officers in the Division thanks to the support of our former and current Presiding Judges and our Court Executive Officer, David Slayton, we are stressed by resource constraints.

The best minds on our court, and elsewhere such as Stanford University and the RAND Corporation, are striving to find better, faster and more efficient methods to do our work with no diminution in the quality of justice. This much is clear: We are going to find new ways to do our work because we have no other choice.

Second, delay in case resolution. More work on top of heavy workloads pushes out times to hearing and time to trial. Our court's mission includes "timely resolution of all cases," and I take that very seriously. Justice delayed is, often, justice denied, and we will never simply accept such delay as an unalterable fact of life.

Q: Is there bright news you see from your perch in D1?

A: Yes. While the increased number of filings is a challenge for us, I take it as a positive sign that our community sees our court as the place to go to resolve disputes. In a world where communities sometimes resort to self-help and violence, our community's apparent confidence in our court and justice system is heartening.

Also, I am excited about new ways of doing our work that I think will be nothing short of revolutionary, will be great for the community and for the morale and job-satisfaction of our judicial officers and our court staff family. These may include community-based court access hubs, mobile court access hubs, and the promise of AI to automate some of our more manual processes. The future, which is not very far from now, will see even more productive relationships with the community and our justice partners on account of these exciting initiatives.

Q: Last question, what do you like best about being in D1?

A: Honestly, I like hearing from other judicial officers in the Division. The phone rings often, and whether it's a problem or a challenge, or an idea, or even just a social call, it's a really nice break from everything else going on in D1. It is a human connection, and I think we judicial officers don't get enough of those.