I wanted to comment not on the substance of the opinion, but instead merely about a strange footnote whose presence I didn't understand.
The opening "Factual and Procedural Background" section of Justice Krause's opinion cogently explains both the facts of the case as well as the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant. It concludes by saying the following:
"As to any claim of vicarious liability, the trial court found that the Graves
Amendment preempted claims based solely on Zipcar’s ownership of the vehicle.
Judgment was entered in favor of Zipcar on January 5, 2024.[Footnote 1: "The trial court judge has since retired from the bench."] Tavares filed a
timely notice of appeal on February 21, 2024."
Doesn't that footnote seem weird? Does it matter at all that the trial judge subsequently retired from the bench? Why include that fact? Reading the opinion, it just made no sense to me.
I wondered whether there was some controversy or investigation into the trial judge, which the opinion lists as David W. Rosenberg of Yolo. Nope. Judge Rosenberg -- like many judges -- simply retired after he served 20 years and was entitled to his full pension. Nothing unusual at all there.
But the various stories about Judge Rosenberg's retirement said that he announced his retirement in October of 2023 and that it was to be effective at the end of the year. If that's right, though, and if judgment was indeed entered on January 5, 2024, then the trial judge did not "subsequently" retire. He retired before entry of judgment, and someone else must have taken over.
So maybe in an earlier draft of the opinion there was a sentence about the new judge entering judgment based on the previous grant of summary judgment, with a supporting footnote, but that footnote remained even after the underlying sentence was deleted? That's all I can figure. Total speculation, of course.
Anyway: Weird footnote. But, yes, the trial judge did at one point leave the bench.
As, ultimately, they all will.
