I'm sure that trial judges appreciate it when the Court of Appeal expressly recognizes that the work performed below is (1) important, and (2) doesn't always have the same inputs as the particularized efforts undertaken on appeal.
So, in this opinion, Judge Wiley (from Los Angeles) gets reversed. I'm sure he's not ecstatic about that. But that he nonetheless appreciates the opening two paragraphs of Justice Currey's opinion:
"This case resolves two obscure and previously unaddressed
state constitutional issues: Does article I, section 16 of the
California Constitution guarantee the right to a jury trial for (1)
nominal statutory damages claims, and/or (2) claims for
attorneys’ fees, under the Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act (CMIA) (Civ. Code, §§ 56 et seq.1)?
With little useful guidance from the parties, no controlling
precedent, and the three-year post-remittitur deadline for
bringing the case to trial about to expire, the experienced and
highly regarded trial judge concluded it does neither. With more
time to reflect, further development of case law, and some modest
additional input from the parties, however, we reach a different
conclusion. We hold that jury trial is guaranteed for CMIA’s
nominal statutory damages claims brought before 2013 under
section 56.36, subdivision (b)(1), but not for attorneys’ fees claims
under section 56.35. We therefore reverse the trial court’s
judgment (which was entered after a bench trial) and remand for
jury trial on both the nominal statutory damages claims and a
remaining compensatory damages claim."
Wholly apart from the Court of Appeal's expressly laudatory statement about Judge Wiley ("the experienced and highly regarded trial judge"), the Court of Appeal also recognizes that the issue was a complex one and the procedural setting of the dispute far from ideal.
In short, if you're a trial judge who's going to get reversed by the Court of Appeal, something like this is probably how you want it to happen.
