Today’s DJ has Bob Olson’s thoughtful On Judgments — Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale highlights the confusion in California law as to what is or is not a judgment in which he argues that California’s law on judgments needs improvement.

In California, statutorily, “[a] judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 577.) But that definition is circular. It is a judgment, if it is final. But it is final, if it is a judgment. The federal rule would add some needed clarity.

Bottom line:

California should adopt the federal separate judgment rule;

Attorney fee motions and motions for Code of Civil Procedure section 998 costs should stay the finality of judgments; and

Judgments should be cut down to contain only the information essential to enforcement.

The BHBA has posted another installment of Bench Stories on its YouTube channel, this time featuring retired Supreme Court Justice Ming Ching. Watch it here.

Today’s DJ also profiles LASC Judge Goorvitch (Oral argument and writing are both important to Judge Stephen Goorvitch), who clerked for Rosemary Pooler and Nora Manella (when she was a C.D.Cal. judge). (The DJ squib puts Judge Pooler on the “2nd District Court of Appeal,” but that should be the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, of course.) He said that clerking for Judge Manella was “the best job I’ve ever had,” and that “Judge Manella used to tell me, ‘A trial judge’s orders are the judge’s brief to the appellate court.’”