Legal Beat

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRESS RELEASE

Release Date: September 15, 2009

Contact: Terry Nafisi, District Court Executive and Clerk of Court
(213) 894-8844

STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE AUDREY B. COLLINS ON THE ANNOUNCED RESIGNATION OF JUDGE STEPHEN G. LARSON

The recent announcement by Judge Stephen G. Larson that he intends to leave the Court on November 2, 2009, to take up a private law practice, once again draws attention to the adverse impact the combination of overwhelming caseload and low salary is having upon the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Central District serves more people than any other federal trial court in the country, including the more than 19 million people living in the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura.

Judge Larson, who has been a district judge for just three and a half years (and was for six prior years a magistrate judge), is a highly respected, active judge who carries a large caseload in Riverside, California. Judge Larson, a devoted father of seven school-age children, has also remained active in the Riverside legal community.

Judge Larson is the third district judge the Court has lost during the last twelve months: Senior Judge Robert M. Takasugi, who passed away on August 4, 2009, carried a full criminal caseload until late 2008; previously, former Judge George P. Schiavelli resigned in October 2008 to join JAMS, a California-based arbitration/mediation firm. In addition, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has announced plans to retire in March 2010 when she is eligible to assume senior status; she too plans to work as a private mediator. The Court also lost the services of two magistrate judges this past year, with Judge Jennifer Lum’s resignation to seek another career, and Judge Jeffrey Johnson’s appointment to the California State Court of Appeals.

In short, the Central District of California faces a crisis of retention. Between 1998 and August 2009, eight federal district judges from the Central District resigned or retired from the federal court system. Five judges retired or resigned to join JAMS, the largest private alternative dispute resolution provider in the world, where neutrals have the potential to earn the equivalent of a district judge’s annual salary in a matter of months. Two resigned to accept state judicial appointments, at a higher salary and better health benefits.

This crisis is due in large part to two factors: stagnating judicial compensation and ever-increasing caseloads. These factors affect federal judges throughout the country, but the Central District has been particularly hard hit by both.

Low Judicial Compensation

In announcing his departure, Judge Larson told his colleagues on the Court, “Given that the much discussed and anticipated judicial salary restoration has not occurred and is now not likely to occur any time soon, that even minimized COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments] are uncertain at best, and coupled with our primary responsibility to our seven children, we can no longer afford for me to continue my public service at this time. The costs associated with raising our family are increasing significantly, while our salary remains stagnant and, in terms of its purchasing power, is actually declining. The short of it is that I know I must place my family’s interest, particularly the future of my children, ahead of my own fervent desire to remain a federal judge.”

The American Bar Association and Federal Bar Association issued a joint report in May 2003, “Federal Judicial Pay, An Update on the Urgent Need for Action,” urging Congress and the President to take remedial action to provide for immediate and lasting pay relief. The report states that over the course of the past three decades, judicial salaries have declined in value, while the salary of the average American worker has increased by 17.5 percent. In addition, judges suffered a 9.8 percent decline in the value of their salaries from 1993 through 2002. This erosion in judicial pay due to inflation has deprived judges (many of whom accepted significantly reduced compensation to become judges) of the prospect of salary stability during their tenure on the bench. This is especially true in California, where the cost of living is extremely high.

The report further states, “Members of the Federal judiciary increasingly are choosing not to remain on the bench. Premature departures of experienced and capable judges impose both real and intangible costs upon the judiciary–especially now, when the workload has increased markedly.”

Increased Caseload

The caseload for federal judges, especially in the Central District, has increased markedly just as the pay level has deteriorated. Weighted filings per authorized judgeship here have been on the rise since 1997. During the 12-month period ending June 30, 2009, weighted filings per judgeship in the Central District reached 611, forty-two percent above the national standard of 430 weighted filings per judgeship. This measure has consistently remained above 500 since 2002
Further, the Central District of California leads the nation with the highest number of mega-criminal cases (cases with more than seven defendants) filed in FY 2008. That year saw a total of 25 such cases filed here -- including one with over 70 indicted defendants -- with the number of big cases expected to rise even higher in FY2009. These huge cases typically involve large and dangerous street gangs, and include charges of RICO violations, narcotics conspiracies, murder, illegal firearm possession, and money laundering. Trials can last months, and management of these cases drains limited judicial and staff resources. In addition, the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act push criminal cases to the front of the line, causing further delays in the civil calendar.

The loss of any judge imposes additional burdens on those remaining, as a departing judge’s pending caseload is typically divided among the remaining judges, adding to the large caseload each already has. The impact of Judge Larson’s departure will be particularly detrimental to the Court, however, due to the heavy civil caseload he has been carrying. He has been handling a number of very large cases with extremely complex issues, such as the Bratz copyright infringement litigation. Even more notably, however, his caseload has been large simply because he sits in Riverside, in the Eastern Division of the Central District.

State court difficulties in Riverside County make it extremely difficult for civil litigants to get their cases tried in state court. This impacts the caseload in the Eastern Division, as an increasing number of litigants seek have their cases heard in federal court instead. Thus, the number of cases removed from state court to the Eastern Division dramatically increased by 377% from 98 in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008, to 468 in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2009.

The recent economic downturn has exacerbated this upward trend, causing an unprecedented number of home foreclosures. District-wide, for the first half of 2009, foreclosure, other real property, and Truth-in-Lending filings were up 663%, and consumer credit filings were up 404%. A disproportionate number of these cases originate in the Eastern Division, which includes San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, both particularly hard hit by the housing crisis.

With only two district judges in the Eastern Division, each Eastern Division judge has received an average of 39 removal cases every month since last fall -- while judges in the Western and Southern Divisions have received an average of just 9 removal cases per month. The burden on the Eastern Division requires the Court to reassign many cases, inconveniencing litigants and requiring them to travel to Los Angeles or Santa Ana to have their cases heard.

Unfilled Judicial Vacancies

The problems the Central District has experienced in retaining judges have been compounded by delays in filling the vacancies created when judges leave. The Central District has 28 authorized judgeships (27 permanent and 1 temporary) to serve a population of over 19 million people, but is operating with a shortage of three -- soon to be four -- judicial vacancies. The Court appreciates the recent nominations to fill two of these vacancies, but even if the two nominees are confirmed soon, the Central District will once again have three judicial vacancies by March 2010. And even prompt action on the remaining vacancies will not immediately solve the lingering problems stemming from the length of time past vacancies in the Central District have remained unfilled. Of the four districts in the nation that have the highest number of authorized judgeships, the Central District had the most vacant judgeship months over the last ten years, with 378 vacant judgeship months.

Further, filling the currently open judgeships will not solve the Court’s caseload problem completely. While the population and caseload of the Central District have grown in recent years, the last judgeship created here was one additional temporary judgeship in November, 2002. The Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended additional judgeships in the Central District for many years; most recently the Conference has recommended the creation of five additional judgeships in this district.

Congressional Assistance Requested

Congress has not enacted a judgeship bill in 19 years. I thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer for their support of Senate Bill 1653, “The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009,” which, if enacted, would create five new judgeships (four permanent and one temporary) for the Central District. Enactment of SB 1653, together with swift nomination and confirmation of the judgeships provided, would greatly alleviate the problems facing the Central District.

The deteriorating level of judicial salary, however, compounded by low or non-authorized COLAs, saps the morale of judges and taxes the financial ability of even the most dedicated judges to remain on the bench when other, far more lucrative, career options exist. The bi-partisan National Commission on the Public Service and every commission that has ever examined the issue recommends substantial increases in judicial compensation. The sad reality we now face is that, in at least some situations, active judges at the peak of their judicial careers must resign to support their families.

As the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, I hope that Judge Larson’s resignation, although devastating for the litigants and judges of this district, will serve to highlight this crisis of retention. The crisis can be alleviated in part by the authorization of additional judgeships and prompt consideration of nominees for judicial vacancies, but can only be resolved with the passage of legislation addressing judicial compensation. The citizens of the Central District -- indeed the citizens of every federal district in this country -- deserve to have a fully staffed bench consisting of federal judges who can devote their entire remaining careers to serving the people of their districts, without fear of having to leave the bench for financial reasons.