On Tuesday, January 18, 2005, I appeared before Judge Goodman. After excoriating California's trial attorney of the year, Greg Long of the Sheppard Mullin firm, for objecting to our supplemental citation to Elsner v. Uveges, 34 Cal. 4th 915 (Dec. 20, 2004). We had filed supplemental briefs raising this issue as briefing had been completed. Defense counsel objected to the case update as briefing had been completed.

Judge Goodman asked defense counsel to explain why the language in Elsner did not apply in Bivens. There was not a good reason.

I did my argument, then we discussed whether there was any appellate case on the issue and when we expected some to publish. I disclosed that we've got oral argument on proposition 64 in Bivens v. Lytwyn, and Bivens v. Corel. Both are set for February 17, 2005.

Judge Goodman asked if either of us had an objection to staying the case for a bit to get some guidance from the courts of appeal. Neither of us did. So, Judge Goodman continued our hearing to May 31, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. We'll sort through the meaning of Proposition 64 as interpreted by the Courts of Appeal at that time.

I'm also operating a blog at mcmillanlaw.blogspot.com