Thursday, June 15, 2006

WFS Financial v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. - June 15, 2006)

I've been reminded today that I'm (allegedly) "a dork." And yet, notwithstanding both that fact and the issuance of five published opinions today by the California Court of Appeal (and two by the Ninth Circuit), I can't find a single thing especially interesting -- or worth talking about -- in any of those seven opinions.

This opinion by Justice Cantil-Sakauye is marginally representative of the lot. A 27-page opinion about whether particular disclosure requirements established by the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Act, Cal. Civ. Code sects. 2981 et seq., are preempted as applied to loans made by federal savings associations, including a particular subsidiary of Western Financial Bank. Talk about exciting! I was trembling with anticipation as I turned page after page after page until I finally understood why the answer was indeed "Yes." The resulting enlightenment has left me spent. My life is now complete.

Oh, sure. You can read the other opinions issued today as well. Like this one by Judge Kozinski, which, in an even longer opinion than WFS, explains -- to use Judge Kozinski's words -- "why it's important for lawyers representing a bankruptcy debtor to turn square corners," and why for that reason summary judgment was improperly entered for the defendant in this particular adversary proceeding. Really?! Do tell! And spare no detail!

Anyway, a snoozer of a day on the appellate front, I'm sorry to say. At least out here on the Left Coast. Better to surf today rather than read opinions. Which is saying a lot. Because the waves stink today.