John Mitch Mitchell joins Tim Kowal to unpack Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, a July 2026 California Supreme Court decision that shuts down a procedural shortcut California litigators have been relying on for years. Mitchell, who represented the plaintiffs on appeal, offers a candid, behind-the-scenes look at how a carefully planned litigation strategy turned into a cautionary tale.

The story starts with a surgical technologist who was exposed to HIV during a cardiac procedure and sued on several different theories. After the trial court sustained a demurrer on most of the claims, Mitchell dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice and filed a declaration explaining that he was doing so only to fast‑track an appeal. Even though this followed what had been the majority approach in the case law, both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court threw out the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously holding that a voluntary dismissal waives the right to appeal when the trial court has not yet finally resolved any claim.

In doing so, the Supreme Court disapproved Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency and other decisions that had blessed this workaround, leaving practitioners with a tough choice. They can either follow the Court’s new three-step procedure and permanently give up any remaining viable claims, or litigate straight through to final judgment before they can challenge a damaging interlocutory ruling on appeal.

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why voluntary dismissal no longer creates an appealable order after an adverse demurrer ruling
• The three-step procedure the Supreme Court says litigants must follow instead
• The practical and economic consequences for plaintiffs facing case-altering interlocutory orders
• The line of authority the court disapproved and what still survives

Have you tried the voluntary‑dismissal workaround in your own cases? Maniago may hit close to home.

Why do tenants' rights cases end up on appeal—and what happens when the Ellis Act gets weaponized? Tenants' rights appellate attorney Fran Campbell joins Jeff Lewis as a guest host while Tim Kowal is on vacation, sharing hard-won insight from landlord-tenant litigation, mobile home park law, and the appellate front lines of California's housing crisis.

Key points:

• The Ellis Act and Barrington Plaza: Campbell's firm challenged Douglas Emmett's attempt to invoke the Ellis Act to remove roughly 750 tenants, raising a statutory interpretation question under Gov. Code § 7060.7.
• Supersedeas strategy: Collecting rent from remaining tenants while an appeal is pending may inadvertently create new periodic tenancies — a risk Campbell says practitioners often overlook.
• Berk v. Choy: The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous ruling could further erode California's anti-SLAPP protections in federal court, with significant implications for practitioners.
• Social media as abuse: A June 2026 Second District opinion holds that social media conduct can qualify as cognizable abuse under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
• Conflict waivers and fee agreements: Failing to obtain a conflict waiver can void not just a fee agreement but its arbitration clause too — per Jane Doe v. McGrath.

Tenants' rights practitioners: Have you faced an Ellis Act claim where the landlord's intent was the deciding issue? Share your experience in the comments.

One California city has been quietly collecting $5,000-per-incident fines from short-term vacation rental owners. And if the regime is struck down, the city may owe half a million dollars back.

Former constitutional law attorney David Koslow joins Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis to break down two Appellate Division challenges that expose a structural flaw in how cities administer and collect STVR fines, and why SEC v. Jarkesy may be the tool that finally pries these cases open.

Key points:

• The $1,000 cap hiding in plain sight: Government Code §36901 sets a default $1,000 ceiling on city fines—but Cathedral City and several other Coachella Valley municipalities have been imposing $5,000 first-offense STVR penalties for years.
• Forfeiture swallowed the first case whole: In Montanaro v. City of Cathedral City, the pro per defendant said the fine was "draconian"—but never said "excessive fines clause." The Court of Appeal dismissed on forfeiture. “Draconian,” says the court, is not the same as “excessive.” 🧐
• Jarkesy goes local—maybe: SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) held that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury-trial forum when the government chooses between administrative and court proceedings for civil penalties. Cathedral City can prosecute STVR violations as misdemeanors in court or through an administrative citation—which, says Koslow, is exactly the kind of forum election Jarkesy targets.
• The vendor-as-judge problem: Data Ticket, Inc.—a private company that collects the city's fines—also supplies the hearing officers who adjudicate them. The structural conflict is not subtle, and it has already spawned its own litigation.
• Pro per litigants are walking into a trap: STVR fines are deliberately calibrated below the cost of hiring an attorney, yet high enough to hurt. The result is a steady stream of self-represented defendants making fatal procedural errors that appellate counsel cannot fix.
• The Coastal Commission wrinkle: Coastal cities face a distinct constraint—the Commission treats STVR bans as restrictions on public coastal access, effectively foreclosing outright prohibitions in the coastal zone.

If you advise cities on enforcement program design, represent property owners facing administrative fines, or litigate issues of constitutional preservation and forfeiture, this episode is required listening before your next city council meeting or appellate brief.

Why do writ petitions so often fail? Judge Tom Fay covers the technical writ rules that attorneys often overlook. In part 2 of our conversation with former lead writs attorney at the Santa Ana Court of Appeal, Judge Fay covers the CRC 8.486 and local rule requirements for your writ petition, the available remedies for a writ petition—Palma notice, alternative writ, or OSC—and the underappreciated complexity of supersedeas.

Key points:

• STAY REQUESTED must be on the cover—in bold, all caps: This single line triggers immediate routing to writ staff.
• Palma, alternative writ, OSC each signal something different: A suggestive Palma notice generally means the panel agrees with the petitioner; an OSC may mean the panel wants to write a published opinion and could lean toward the trial court.
• Alternative writs are not law of the case: Roullier v. Cannondale, 101 Cal.App.4th 1180—a trial court that complies with an alternative writ can still be reversed on appeal.
• Supersedeas is a motion for stay, not a true original proceeding: Veyna v. Orange County Nursery, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 146.

Appellate lawyers: what else is on your emergency writ checklist?

Tom Fay spent years as the lead civil writs attorney for California's 4th District, Division 3, processing every emergency petition that crossed the court's threshold. Effective June 29, 2026, he's now Judge Tom Fay of the Orange County Superior Court. We caught Judge Fay between appointments for an inside look at what actually happens when your writ petition hits the clerk's desk—and what separates the petitions that get a panel's attention from those that don't.

Key points:

• Help the court triage: The first question isn't the merits—it's “when is the next hearing and what happens if we don't act today?” Every writ petition is sorted the moment it arrives: same-day, next writ conference, or back of the queue. Make sure your cover page and first page of the petition allow the court to triage.
• Call the clerk before you file: For same-day stays, call the court first. The panel needs three justices, a writ attorney, and clerk staff simultaneously available. A 4:30 p.m. filing without advance notice is nearly impossible to act on.
• 59 days is not an emergency: Waiting until day 59 of a 60-day window sends a signal. Judge Fay calls it "revealed preferences"—if you treated it like a crisis, you would have filed sooner.
• Summary denials are inscrutable by design: A one-liner means the petition is denied and nothing else—not that your arguments were wrong (but that’s a possibility, too).
• “Speaking denials” are intentional: If the court adds a sentence beyond the boilerplate denial, assume it’s deliberate.

We also cover choosing the right tone, and how to frame your harm as irreparable.

Bookmark this one for next time you draft a writ petition.

What about a writ petition is most mystifying? What is your guiding light for a successful petition?

One of just 12 California lawyers dual-certified in both family and appellate law, Lisa McCall has an unusually clear view of how family trial work plays out on appeal. Lisa shares the record‑killing mistakes family lawyers often make.

And with 14 published opinions, Lisa shares about publish-worthy issues and her work on the amicus committee at the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists to clarify the law.

We also discuss recent changes to domestic violence laws, and to the statement of decision procedures.

Key points:

• Statements of decision: Request early. Starting January 2027, you must request a statement of decision before submission—make it the last line of closing—or you lose it. Objections drop to a 10‑day window, and judgments must be prepared within 30 days. (CCP §§ 632, 634).
• 3044 findings: miss them, you lose. Missing written findings on the Family Code section 3044 domestic‑violence custody presumption is treated as a structural error—one of the rare spots where a procedural miss virtually guarantees reversal.
• Offers of proof: get them on paper. When a judge excludes evidence and won’t hear oral offers of proof, preserve the issue with written offers explaining what the evidence would have shown, like in Marriage of Burmeister.
• Smart motions in limine in family court. Broad “exclude everything” motions go nowhere; targeted motions to enforce prior orders or strip out legally improper recommendations are where motions in limine earn their keep.

If your family law case has even a shot at the Court of Appeal, don’t walk into your next hearing blind—listen to this episode first.

John Snow, Director of Legal and Trial Training at the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and author of Rules to Speak By (Carolina Academic Press, 2026), joins Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis to discuss what it actually takes to be an effective oral advocate. Snow has tried more than 30 cases to completion in state and federal court and spent years designing trial training programs for lawyers at the LA City Attorney's Office, experience that grounds every practical lesson in the book.

Snow argues that oral advocacy is a rule-governed discipline, not a natural talent, and that the lawyers who appear effortless have simply practiced more than anyone realizes. Drawing on cognitive psychology research alongside transcripts from high-profile trials, he explains how audiences absorb spoken argument and how advocates routinely lose their audience without knowing it. He walks through specific techniques, including the one-fact-per-question rule on cross-examination, slide design that functions like a billboard rather than a script, and how to respond to hostile bench questions without hedging or losing credibility. He also addresses how trial conduct shapes the appellate record, making clear that a single, well-placed sentence at trial can preserve an issue for review.

Drawing on cognitive psychology research and transcripts from high-profile trials, he explains how audiences absorb spoken argument—and how advocates routinely lose their audience without knowing it.

We discuss:

• The one-fact-per-question rule on cross-examination—otherwise you’ll lose the witness, and the jury.
• Designing PowerPoint slides? Think billboards, not scripts
• How to respond to hostile bench questions without hedging or losing credibility.
• The cognitive psychology principles behind Snow's ten rules for oral advocacy
• Cross-examination technique and how precise phrasing controls witness responses
• Handling hostile questions from an appellate panel without losing confidence

What is the single oral advocacy habit you have found hardest to break, even after years in the courtroom?

Drawing on 20 years observing attorney behavior, Hon. Stuart M. Rice (ret.) now at JAMS, speaks freely. This episode is a rare candid debrief from the other side of the bench.

Key topics:

• What incivility actually costs you in court: Judge Rice served on the statewide civility task force and watched uncivil conduct for two decades. His diagnosis: it's not the screamer at deposition—it's the subtler patterns that quietly erode a lawyer's credibility with the bench.
• The task force secured a new oath provision requiring lawyers admitted since 2014 to attest to treating others with "dignity, respect, and courtesy"—but how much does an oath really change behavior?
• Show up in person—especially when you can lose: Remote appearances transformed California courtrooms post-COVID, and not for the better. Judge Rice's rule from the bench: if you can win or lose at a hearing, you will do better work in the room.
• And that's true in mediation, too.
• Complex mediation is a strategy problem, not just a settlement problem: As the judge who presided over all of the 2025 Palisades Fire consolidated cases and California's Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer litigation, Judge Rice brings a systems view to large multi-plaintiff matters. He recently wrote in the Daily Journal on what it takes to succeed in complex mediations—and his JAMS practice is built around exactly these cases.
• Pupillage groups and the civility dividend: As president of the Benjamin Aranda III Inn of Court, Judge Rice restructured pupillage groups to require two new members per group who were law students or lawyers within five years of practice—successfully shifting the Inn's demographics and, he argues, its culture.
• The Adam Z. Rice Memorial Scholarship: Judge Rice is in his fourth consecutive year as president of the California Judges Foundation, which funds needs-based scholarships for law students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The scholarship is named for his late son. This year's award included an offer of free mentoring until the recipient's first legal job. Find it by searching "Adam Rice Memorial Scholarship" or visiting caljudges.org.

Your next status conference is closer than you think. Hit play before it gets here—this episode will change how you read the room.

Does your office have a blank 170.6 form ready to go for a certain judge? Stop doing that. A 170.6 peremptory challenge is no longer automatic: the California Supreme Court now authorizes courts to look behind your 170.6. The touchstone is whether your 170.6 is based on a genuine belief of prejudice—or mere grievance.

But first, a $3 million sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel in a big‑pharma advertising case, where an expert obtained key clinical data before it was disclosed and the firm failed to correct the record. The Northern District of California called out firm culture, and ordering the attorneys to prepare and lead an eight‑hour ethics MCLE.

• How a three‑million‑dollar sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel grew out of failures to correct prior statements about expert discovery.
• The court’s criticism of a “culture of bad ethics decisions” and the requirement for a bespoke eight‑hour ethics course.
• The facts in J.O. v. Superior Court, including 325 peremptory challenges aimed at removing a single judge from conservatorship matters.
• The new three‑step framework for challenging bad‑faith, blanket 170.6 practices and what counts as a prima facie showing.
• Strategic implications for lawyers who rely on peremptory challenges in small counties and specialized calendars.

What is your firm’s 170.6 practice like? Expect any changes after J.O.?

The fall of copyright troll Prenda Law is, according to the ABA Journal, "part of legal folklore." We talk with the attorney who kicked over the first domino, Morgan Pietz.

Prenda Law was the copyright trolling operation that filed approximately 20,000 abusive BitTorrent lawsuits targeting anonymous defendants for alleged pornography downloads. Morgan's work on that case resulted in criminal prosecutions and a now-famous sanctions order by Judge Otis Wright, called the Star Trek order (e.g., though the plaintiffs "boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO").

Morgan discusses how the Prenda Law scheme worked, what made it cross the line from aggressive litigation into fraud, and how he uncovered the deception through creative investigation and a willingness to question claims that didn't sound right.

The conversation also covers Morgan's work on anonymous speech litigation.