Preview
1 WARREN METLITZKY (CA Bar No. 220758)
GABRIELA KIPNIS (CA Bar No. 284965)
2 ELECTRONICALLY
WILLIAM J. COOPER (CA Bar No. 304524)
COURTNEY C. AASEN (CA Bar No. 307404) F I L E D
3 CONRAD & METLITZKY LLP Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
4 San Francisco, CA 94111 09/25/2019
Tel: (415) 343-7100 Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
5 Fax: (415) 343-7101 Deputy Clerk
Email: wmetlitzky@conradmetlitzky.com
6 Email: gkipnis@conradmetlitzky.com
Email: wcooper@conradmetlitzky.com
7 Email: caasen@conradmetlitzky.com
8 Attorneys for Defendant LYFT, INC.
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
13
14 STEPHANIE NAN, an individual, CASE NO. CGC-19-578640
15 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF WARREN
METLITZKY IN SUPPORT OF
16 v. DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.’S MOTION
TO DISMISS OR STAY BASED ON
17 LYFT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and FORUM NON CONVENIENS
DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive,
18 Date: October 18, 2019
Time: 9:30 a.m.
19 Defendants. Place: 400 McAllister Street
Dept. 302
20 San Francisco, CA 94102
21 Reservation #: 009191018-09
22 Action Filed: August 23, 2019
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS
1 I, Warren Metlitzky, declare as follows:
2 1. I am an attorney in good standing licensed to practice in the State of California and am
3 over the age of 18. I am counsel for Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) in this action. Except as otherwise
4 indicated, the following facts are known to me personally, and if called upon as a witness, I could testify
5 to them competently.
6 2. Lyft is a transportation network company that runs a software platform connecting people
7 offering rides to those seeking them. Drivers who wish to use Lyft’s platform must (among other
8 things) register with Lyft, pass background checks, and agree to Lyft’s Terms of Service. Once
9 approved to drive on the Lyft platform, drivers may use the platform to offer rides, or not, whenever and
10 wherever they choose.
11 3. Attached as Exhibit A to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Complaint in
12 this action.
13 4. If this case is dismissed in favor of litigation in the State of New York or another
14 appropriate venue agreed upon by the parties, Lyft will agree to toll the applicable statutes of limitations
15 for the time this action is pending against Lyft in California and, if necessary, for 30 days after dismissal
16 of this currently pending San Francisco Superior Court action in order to provide Plaintiff a reasonable
17 opportunity to re-file in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred.
18 5. The following information relates to the identity and residence of persons known to be
19 parties to this action or otherwise percipient witnesses to the matters raised by the Complaint in this
20 action and a description of the matters upon which they are anticipated to testify:
21 a. Plaintiff resides in Brooklyn, New York. (See Compl. ¶ 46.) Plaintiff is expected to
22 testify about the alleged incident described in the Complaint, which occurred in
23 Brooklyn, New York, as well as the events leading up to it and the damages she
24 claims to have sustained as a result.
25 b. Prior to the alleged incident, Plaintiff had gone out drinking with friends in
26 Manhattan. (Compl. ¶ 36.) These friends likely live in New York and are expected
27 to testify about the alleged assault, the events leading up to it, Plaintiff’s use of the
28
2
CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS
1 Lyft platform, Plaintiff’s claimed damages, and other topics relevant to the claims and
2 allegations set forth in the Complaint.
3 c. Farhan is the driver who Plaintiff alleges assaulted her. (See Compl. ¶ 37.) My
4 office’s investigation confirms that Farhan is a New York resident. He is expected to
5 testify about the ride and subsequent events that Plaintiff alleges culminated in the
6 alleged incident.
7 d. Plaintiff filed a report with the police regarding the alleged incident. (See Compl.
8 ¶ 41.) Upon information and belief, New York Police Department police officers and
9 other law enforcement professionals who investigated the alleged incident reside in
10 New York. Those witnesses are expected to testify about their investigation and other
11 topics relevant to the claims and allegations set forth in the Complaint.
12 e. Because Plaintiff resides in New York, persons familiar with her daily life since the
13 alleged incident—including her friends, family, coworkers, and any medical or
14 psychological professionals who have treated Plaintiff—likely also reside in New
15 York. Those persons are expected to testify about, and may possess records
16 regarding, Plaintiff’s claimed damages.
17 6. Because no discovery has been conducted, there are likely other witnesses in New York
18 that have not yet been identified but who may be necessary percipient witnesses on behalf of either
19 party.
20 7. This case is one of multiple cases of alleged assault or sexual misconduct occurring
21 outside of California that Plaintiff’s counsel, Levin Simes Abrams LLP, has filed against Lyft. Most of
22 these cases involve out-of-state incidents allegedly committed by out-of-state drivers against out-of-state
23 plaintiffs.
24 8. Plaintiff’s counsel has filed other complaints against Lyft in the last few weeks. Those
25 include:
26 a. Jane Doe 1 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578124, filed August 1,
27 2019, based on an alleged incident in Louisiana.
28
3
CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS
1 b. Jane Doe 2 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578122, filed August 1,
2 2019, based on an alleged incident in Michigan.
3 c. Matheson v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578123, filed August 1,
4 2019, based on an alleged incident in Washington.
5 d. Hardin v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-57820, filed August 8, 2019,
6 based on an alleged incident in Virginia.
7 e. Espinosa v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578282, filed August 8,
8 2019, based on an alleged incident in Florida.
9 f. Jane Doe 4 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578286, filed August 8,
10 2019, based on an alleged incident in California.
11 g. Jane Doe 3 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578268, filed August 8,
12 2019, based on an alleged incident in Washington.
13 h. Berquist v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578643, filed August 23,
14 2019, based on an alleged incident in Minnesota.
15 i. Bicana v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578645, filed August 23,
16 2019, based on an alleged incident in Wisconsin.
17 j. Kran v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578647, filed August 23, 2019,
18 based on an alleged incident in Ohio.
19 k. Jane Doe 5 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578878, filed August 30,
20 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident.
21 l. DiTrani v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-578933, filed September 3,
22 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident.
23 m. Turkos v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579280, filed September 17,
24 2019, based on an alleged incident in New Jersey.
25 n. Jane Doe 6 v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579281, filed September
26 17, 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident.
27 o. Wilson v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579284 filed September 17,
28 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident.
4
CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS
1 p. Hashem v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579285 filed September 17,
2 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident.
3 q. Christensen v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579282, filed
4 September 17, 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California
5 resident.
6 9. In the above complaints brought on behalf of “Jane Doe” plaintiffs, Plaintiff’s counsel
7 has promised that it will “continue to file numerous” similar cases.
8 10. In media articles regarding the filings of some of the cases identified above, Plaintiff’s
9 counsel, Laurel Simes, is quoted as saying “Right now, we have over 100 cases between Lyft and Uber.
10 We’re getting new cases every day.” In a recent Court filing, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that, “the total
11 number of [sexual assault cases against Lyft] is expected to reach and exceed fifty (50) cases.”
12 11. Attached as Exhibit B to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Judicial Council
13 of California form entitled Commission To Take Deposition Outside California pursuant to Code of
14 Civil Procedure section 2026.010, which the parties would need to file in order to initiate requests for
15 out-of-state discovery if this case were to remain in this Court.
16 12. Attached as Exhibit C to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Judicial Council
17 of California’s 2018 COURT STATISTICS REPORT: Statewide Caseload Trends 2007–2008 Through
18 2016–2017, available for download at https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2018-Court-Statistics-
19 Report.pdf, and downloaded on September 3, 2019.
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
22 foregoing is true and correct.
23 Executed this 25th day of September at San Francisco, California.
24
25
26 WARREN METLITZKY
27
28
5
CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
DISC-030
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO. (Optional):
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
ATTORNEY FOR (Name):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
STREET ADDRESS:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY AND ZIP CODE:
BRANCH NAME:
SHORT TITLE:
CASE NUMBER:
COMMISSION TO TAKE DEPOSITION OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA
ORDERED BY COURT ISSUED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT
1. The Superior Court of California hereby authorizes the deposition, upon oral examination, of (identity of deponent):
2. The deposition is to be taken in (state of the United States, territory, or insular possession subject to its jurisdiction):
3. The deposition will be conducted (check one):
a. Under the supervision of a person who is authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United States or those of the
place where the examination is to be held, and who is not otherwise disqualified under California Code of Civil Procedure
sections 2025.320 and 2025.340(b)–(f); or
b. Before (name of appointee):
who is appointed to administer oaths and to take testimony.
4. The documents or things to be produced at the time and place of the deposition are
described in Attachment 4 none.
5. Additional terms required by the foreign jurisdiction to initiate the process are contained in Attachment 5.
Number of pages
attached: .
6. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2026.010, California authorizes that a commission to take an out-of-state
deposition may be issued by the clerk of the court or, if the foreign jurisdiction requires it, by order of the court.
7. The Superior Court of the State of California hereby requests that process issue in the above-referenced place where the
examination is to be held, requiring the attendance and enforcing the obligations of the deponent to produce documents and
answer questions.
Date: _________________________________________
Judge
OR
Clerk, by ________________________, Deputy
Court Seal
Page 1 of 1
Form Approved for Optional Use
Judicial Council of California
COMMISSION TO TAKE Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010(f)
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
DISC-030 [New January 1, 2008] DEPOSITION OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA
Exhibit C
2018 COURT STATISTICS REPORT
Statewide Caseload Trends
2007–2008 Through 2016–2017
2018 COURT STATISTICS REPORT
Statewide Caseload Trends
2007–2008 Through 2016–2017
Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
415-865-7740
California Courts Infoline: 800-900-5980
pubinfo@jud.ca.gov
© 2018 by Judicial Council of California. All rights reserved.
Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly provided herein,
no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online, or
mechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in
writing from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce
and distribute this publication for educational purposes if the copies credit the copyright holder.
This report is available on the California Courts website: www.courts.ca.gov/12941.htm#id7495
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
Martin Hoshino
Administrative Director
Millicent Tidwell
Chief Deputy Director
Administrative Division
John Wordlaw
Chief Administrative Officer
Budget Services
Zlatko Theodorovic
Director
Office of Court Research
Leah Rose-Goodwin
Manager
Chris Belloli
Supervising Research Analyst
Emily Chirk
Senior Analyst
Cheryl King
Research Analyst
Vy Tran
Temporary Analyst II
P R E FA C E
Court Statistics Report
The Court Statistics Report (CSR) is published annually by the Judicial Council of California and is designed to
fulfill the provisions of article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution, which requires the Judicial Council to
survey the condition and business of the California Courts. The CSR combines 10-year statewide summaries of
Superior Court filings and dispositions with similar workload indicators for the California Supreme Court and
Courts of Appeal. The 2018 CSR also provides more detailed information on filings and dispositions in the
individual Superior Courts for the most recent fiscal year for which data are available, 2016–2017.
Caseload Data and Court Workload
California’s court system is one of the largest in the world and serves a population of more than 39 million
people—about 12 percent of the total U.S. population—and more than 2,000 judicial officers and approximately
18,000 Judicial Branch employees statewide address the full range of cases heard each year. The vast
majority of cases in the California Courts begin in one of the 58 superior, or trial, courts, which reside in each
of the state’s 58 counties. With more than 500 court buildings throughout the state, these courts hear both
civil and criminal cases as well as family, probate, mental health, juvenile, and traffic cases.
The data published in the Court Statistics Report is used by the Judicial Branch in policy development, program
evaluation, performance management, and in workload analysis to measure judicial and court staff resource
needs in California. Because different types of cases require different amounts of judicial and staff resources,
a weighted caseload approach is the standard method, nationwide, to estimate the workload and resource
needs of the courts. Weighted caseload distinguishes between different categories of filings so that the
resources required to process a felony case, for example, are recognized as being much greater than the
resources required to process a traffic infraction. As the mix or composition of cases change over time, a
weighted caseload approach is needed to assess the impact of caseload trends on court workload. The Judicial
Council has adopted caseweights for two workload models used by the Judicial Branch—the Judicial Workload
Assessment and the Resource Assessment Study (RAS) model.
With the introduction of a new budget development and allocation process for the trial courts in 2013, the data
published in the Court Statistics Report is being used by the Judicial Branch for a critically important new
purpose. The Judicial Council adopted the Workload-based Allocation and Funding Methodology, or WAFM,
which uses the Resource Assessment Model (RAS) and other workload factors in a new budget development
process that alters baseline funding for most trial courts based on court workload.
Summary of 2018 Court Statistics Report
A summary of the caseload data in the 2018 CSR for the California Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and
Superior Courts for fiscal year 2016–2017 are as follows:
Supreme Court
x The Supreme Court issued 92 written opinions during the year.
x Filings totaled 7,317, and dispositions totaled 7,262.
x Automatic appeals arising out of judgments of death totaled 14 cases, and the court disposed of 20
such appeals by written opinion.
Judicial Council of California i 2018 Court Statistics Report
x The Supreme Court ordered 5 Court of Appeal opinions depublished in this fiscal year.
Courts of Appeal
x Total contested matters for the Courts of Appeal totaled 18,717 made up of 12,313 records of appeal
and 6,404 original proceedings.
x Dispositions in the Courts of Appeal totaled 20,824. Of these dispositions, 15,343 were appeals, and
6,279 were original proceedings.
x Dispositions of appeals by written opinion totaled 9,295, appeals disposed of without written opinion
totaled 3,921, and appeals disposed of without a record filed totaled 2,127. Dispositions of original
proceedings by written opinion totaled 373, and original proceedings disposed of without written
opinion totaled 5,906.
x Statewide, 9 percent of Court of Appeal majority opinions were published.
Superior Courts
In FY 2016-17, over 5.8 million cases were filed statewide in the Superior Courts. The CSR organizes all the
cases filed in the courts in four main case categories—Civil; Criminal; Family and Juvenile; Probate, Mental
Health, Appeals, Habeas. The case filing totals for the individual case types reported by the courts for FY
2016-17 are as follows:
Civil: The civil case category is made up of unlimited civil, limited civil, and small claims matters. Civil
unlimited cases are matters where the petitioner is seeking more than $25,000. There were 210,028
unlimited civil cases filed in the courts.Limited civil filings are cases where the petitioner is seeking
$25,000 or less. Limited civil cases totaled 400,599 statewide. Small claims filings are cases where the
petitioner is seeking $10,000 or less and is not represented by counsel. A total of 163,575 small claims
cases were filed statewide.
Criminal: The criminal case category is made up of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. The filing
totals for the individual case types are as follows: felony filings represented 189,013 cases, misdemeanor
filings totaled 766,782 cases, and infraction filings accounted for 3,562,687 cases.
Family and Juvenile: Marital filings (dissolutions, legal separations and nullities) accounted for 134,756
cases and other family law filings (e.g. paternity, child support) totaled 240,773 cases. Juvenile
delinquency filings totaled 32,806 cases and juvenile dependency filings totaled 41,701 cases.
Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, and Habeas: The filing totals for the individual case types are as follows:
probate filings totaled 49,152 cases; mental health filings totaled 35,316 cases; civil and criminal appeal
filings totaled 3,926 cases; and criminal habeas corpus filings totaled 6,511 cases.
The decline in total statewide filings over the past year is mostly driven by limited jurisdiction case type--
misdemeanors and infractions in the criminal case category. These limited jurisdiction cases tend to be, on
average, much less complex and resource-intensive for courts than unlimited jurisdiction cases such as
felonies, civil torts, family and juvenile, probate, and mental health. Several of the most complex types of
cases, such as Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (PI/PD/WD), Probate, and Mental Health,
had an increase in filings from the previous year.
Judicial Council of California ii 2018 Court Statistics Report
CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
The California Court System . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
SUPREME COURT . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 23
Total Filings and Dispositions............................................................................................................. 25
Figure 1 Total Filings ......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2 Total Dispositions ............................................................................................... 25
Filings and Dispositions: Summary .................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3 Petitions for Review............................................................................................ 26
Figure 4 Original Proceedings .......................................................................................... 26
Figure 5 Automatic Appeals.............................................................................................. 26
Figure 6 Habeas Corpus Related To Automatic Appeals ................................................ 26
Figure 7 State Bar Matters ............................................................................................... 26
Data for Figures 3–7: Filings and Dispositions: Summary ............................................................... 27
Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for Review................................................................................... 28
Figure 8 Total Petitions for Review .................................................................................. 28
Figure 9 Civil Total ............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 9a Civil Appeals ........................................................................................................ 28
Figure 9b Civil Writs ............................................................................................................ 28
Figure 10 Criminal Total ...................................................................................................... 28
Figure 10a Criminal Appeals................................................................................................. 28
Figure 10b Criminal Habeas Corpus .................................................................................... 28
Figure 10c Criminal Other Writs ........................................................................................... 28
Data for Figures 8–10c: Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for Review.......................................... 29
Summary of Actions on Petitions for Review..................................................................................... 30
Table 1 Summary of Actions on Petitions for Review .................................................... 30
Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings ................................................................................. 31
Figure 11 Total Original Proceedings ................................................................................. 31
Figure 12 Civil Total ............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 13 Criminal Total ...................................................................................................... 31
Figure 13a Criminal Habeas Corpus .................................................................................... 31
Figure 13b Criminal Other Writs ........................................................................................... 31
Data for Figures 11–13b: Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings ...................................... 32
State Bar Matters Filed....................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 14 Total State Bar Matters Filed ............................................................................. 33
Table 2 Types of State Bar Matters Filed ....................................................................... 33
Business Transacted .......................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 15 Written Opinions ................................................................................................. 34
Figure 16 Original Proceedings .......................................................................................... 34
Figure 17 Petitions for Review – Granted .......................................................................... 34
Figure 18 Petitions for Review – Denied ........................................................................... 34
Figure 19 Petitions for Review – Percent Granted ............................................................ 34
Figure 20 Rehearings – Granted ........................................................................................ 34
Figure 21 Rehearings – Denied ......................................................................................... 34
Figure 22 Executive Clemency Applications ...................................................................... 34
Data for Figures 15-22: Business Transacted .................................................................................. 35
Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court,
Fiscal Years 1998–99 through 2016–17......................................................................................... 36
Figure 23 Depublished Opinions ........................................................................................ 36
Data for Figure 23: Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court ......... 37
Capital Cases in Which the Record Was Not Certified for Completeness
Within 90 Days, and for Accuracy Within 120 Days ......................................................................... 38
Table 3 ................................................................................................................................... 38
C OURTS OF APPEAL . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 39
Performance Indicator Data ............................................................................................................... 41
Table 1 Performance Indicator Data .............................................................................. 41
Figure 1 Ratio of Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per 100 Appeals
Disposed of by Written Opinion ......................................................................... 42
Figure 2 Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per Authorized Justice ..................................... 42
Figure 3 Majority Opinions per Judge Equivalent ............................................................ 42
Caseload Comparisons ....................................................................................................................... 43
Table 2 Caseload Comparisons ...................................................................................... 43
Figure 4 Pending Appeals: Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice .................... 44
Figure 5 Filings and Dispositions: Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice ........ 44
Summary of Filings ............................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 6 Total Contested Matters .................................................................................... 45
Figure 7 Total Contested Matters per Authorized Justice .............................................. 45
Record of Appeal Filings ..................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 8 All Districts .......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 9 First District......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 10 Second District ................................................................................................... 46
Figure 11 Third District ....................................................................................................... 46
Figure 12 Fourth District ..................................................................................................... 46
Figure 13 Fifth District ........................................................................................................ 46
Figure 14 Sixth District ........................................................................................................ 46
Original Proceedings Filings ............................................................................................................... 47
Figure 15 All Districts .......................................................................................................... 47
Figure 16 First District......................................................................................................... 47
Figure 17 Second District ................................................................................................... 47
Figure 18 Third District ....................................................................................................... 47
Figure 19 Fourth District ..................................................................................................... 47
Figure 20 Fifth District ........................................................................................................ 47
Figure 21 Sixth District ........................................................................................................ 47
Appeals Disposed of by Written Opinion ........................................................................................... 48
Figure 22 Total Appeals ...................................................................................................... 48
Figure 23 Criminal Appeals by Defendants ....................................................................... 48
Figure 24 Criminal Appeals by Prosecution ....................................................................... 48
Figure 25 Civil Appeals ........................................................................................................ 48
Figure 26 Juvenile Appeals (Criminal Violation) ................................................................ 48
Figure 27 Other Juvenile Appeals....................................................................................... 48
Percentage of Majority Opinions Published ...................................................................................... 49
Figure 28 Total Appeals ...................................................................................................... 49
Figure 29 Criminal Appeals................................................................................................. 49
Figure 30 Civil Appeals ........................................................................................................ 49
Figure 31 Juvenile Appeals ................................................................................................. 49
Figure 32 Original Proceedings .......................................................................................... 49
Civil Appeals: Time From Notice of Appeal to Filing Opinion ........................................................... 50
Figure 33 90th Percentile and Median .............................................................................. 50
Criminal Appeals: Time From Notice of Appeal to Filing Opinion .................................................... 51
Figure 34 90th Percentile and Median .............................................................................. 51
Summary of Filings and Dispositions................................................................................................. 52
Table 3 ............................................................................................................................. 52
Summary of Filings ............................................................................................................................. 53
Table 4 ............................................................................................................................. 53
Appeals—Method of Disposition......................................................................................................... 54
Table 5 ............................................................................................................................. 54
Dispositions of Original Proceedings ................................................................................................. 55
Table 6 ............................................................................................................................. 55
Opinions Written ............................................................................................................................. 56
Table 7 ............................................................................................................................. 56
Pending Appeals—Total and Fully Briefed ......................................................................................... 57
Table 8 ............................................................................................................
Preview
1 WARREN METLITZKY (CA Bar No. 220758) GABRIELA KIPNIS (CA Bar No. 284965) 2 ELECTRONICALLY WILLIAM J. COOPER (CA Bar No. 304524) COURTNEY C. AASEN (CA Bar No. 307404) F I L E D 3 CONRAD & METLITZKY LLP Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 4 San Francisco, CA 94111 09/25/2019 Tel: (415) 343-7100 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU 5 Fax: (415) 343-7101 Deputy Clerk Email: wmetlitzky@conradmetlitzky.com 6 Email: gkipnis@conradmetlitzky.com Email: wcooper@conradmetlitzky.com 7 Email: caasen@conradmetlitzky.com 8 Attorneys for Defendant LYFT, INC. 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 13 14 STEPHANIE NAN, an individual, CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 15 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF WARREN METLITZKY IN SUPPORT OF 16 v. DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY BASED ON 17 LYFT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, 18 Date: October 18, 2019 Time: 9:30 a.m. 19 Defendants. Place: 400 McAllister Street Dept. 302 20 San Francisco, CA 94102 21 Reservation #: 009191018-09 22 Action Filed: August 23, 2019 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS 1 I, Warren Metlitzky, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney in good standing licensed to practice in the State of California and am 3 over the age of 18. I am counsel for Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) in this action. Except as otherwise 4 indicated, the following facts are known to me personally, and if called upon as a witness, I could testify 5 to them competently. 6 2. Lyft is a transportation network company that runs a software platform connecting people 7 offering rides to those seeking them. Drivers who wish to use Lyft’s platform must (among other 8 things) register with Lyft, pass background checks, and agree to Lyft’s Terms of Service. Once 9 approved to drive on the Lyft platform, drivers may use the platform to offer rides, or not, whenever and 10 wherever they choose. 11 3. Attached as Exhibit A to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Complaint in 12 this action. 13 4. If this case is dismissed in favor of litigation in the State of New York or another 14 appropriate venue agreed upon by the parties, Lyft will agree to toll the applicable statutes of limitations 15 for the time this action is pending against Lyft in California and, if necessary, for 30 days after dismissal 16 of this currently pending San Francisco Superior Court action in order to provide Plaintiff a reasonable 17 opportunity to re-file in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. 18 5. The following information relates to the identity and residence of persons known to be 19 parties to this action or otherwise percipient witnesses to the matters raised by the Complaint in this 20 action and a description of the matters upon which they are anticipated to testify: 21 a. Plaintiff resides in Brooklyn, New York. (See Compl. ¶ 46.) Plaintiff is expected to 22 testify about the alleged incident described in the Complaint, which occurred in 23 Brooklyn, New York, as well as the events leading up to it and the damages she 24 claims to have sustained as a result. 25 b. Prior to the alleged incident, Plaintiff had gone out drinking with friends in 26 Manhattan. (Compl. ¶ 36.) These friends likely live in New York and are expected 27 to testify about the alleged assault, the events leading up to it, Plaintiff’s use of the 28 2 CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS 1 Lyft platform, Plaintiff’s claimed damages, and other topics relevant to the claims and 2 allegations set forth in the Complaint. 3 c. Farhan is the driver who Plaintiff alleges assaulted her. (See Compl. ¶ 37.) My 4 office’s investigation confirms that Farhan is a New York resident. He is expected to 5 testify about the ride and subsequent events that Plaintiff alleges culminated in the 6 alleged incident. 7 d. Plaintiff filed a report with the police regarding the alleged incident. (See Compl. 8 ¶ 41.) Upon information and belief, New York Police Department police officers and 9 other law enforcement professionals who investigated the alleged incident reside in 10 New York. Those witnesses are expected to testify about their investigation and other 11 topics relevant to the claims and allegations set forth in the Complaint. 12 e. Because Plaintiff resides in New York, persons familiar with her daily life since the 13 alleged incident—including her friends, family, coworkers, and any medical or 14 psychological professionals who have treated Plaintiff—likely also reside in New 15 York. Those persons are expected to testify about, and may possess records 16 regarding, Plaintiff’s claimed damages. 17 6. Because no discovery has been conducted, there are likely other witnesses in New York 18 that have not yet been identified but who may be necessary percipient witnesses on behalf of either 19 party. 20 7. This case is one of multiple cases of alleged assault or sexual misconduct occurring 21 outside of California that Plaintiff’s counsel, Levin Simes Abrams LLP, has filed against Lyft. Most of 22 these cases involve out-of-state incidents allegedly committed by out-of-state drivers against out-of-state 23 plaintiffs. 24 8. Plaintiff’s counsel has filed other complaints against Lyft in the last few weeks. Those 25 include: 26 a. Jane Doe 1 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578124, filed August 1, 27 2019, based on an alleged incident in Louisiana. 28 3 CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS 1 b. Jane Doe 2 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578122, filed August 1, 2 2019, based on an alleged incident in Michigan. 3 c. Matheson v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578123, filed August 1, 4 2019, based on an alleged incident in Washington. 5 d. Hardin v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-57820, filed August 8, 2019, 6 based on an alleged incident in Virginia. 7 e. Espinosa v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578282, filed August 8, 8 2019, based on an alleged incident in Florida. 9 f. Jane Doe 4 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578286, filed August 8, 10 2019, based on an alleged incident in California. 11 g. Jane Doe 3 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578268, filed August 8, 12 2019, based on an alleged incident in Washington. 13 h. Berquist v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578643, filed August 23, 14 2019, based on an alleged incident in Minnesota. 15 i. Bicana v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578645, filed August 23, 16 2019, based on an alleged incident in Wisconsin. 17 j. Kran v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578647, filed August 23, 2019, 18 based on an alleged incident in Ohio. 19 k. Jane Doe 5 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578878, filed August 30, 20 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident. 21 l. DiTrani v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-578933, filed September 3, 22 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident. 23 m. Turkos v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579280, filed September 17, 24 2019, based on an alleged incident in New Jersey. 25 n. Jane Doe 6 v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579281, filed September 26 17, 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident. 27 o. Wilson v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579284 filed September 17, 28 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident. 4 CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS 1 p. Hashem v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579285 filed September 17, 2 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident. 3 q. Christensen v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-579282, filed 4 September 17, 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California 5 resident. 6 9. In the above complaints brought on behalf of “Jane Doe” plaintiffs, Plaintiff’s counsel 7 has promised that it will “continue to file numerous” similar cases. 8 10. In media articles regarding the filings of some of the cases identified above, Plaintiff’s 9 counsel, Laurel Simes, is quoted as saying “Right now, we have over 100 cases between Lyft and Uber. 10 We’re getting new cases every day.” In a recent Court filing, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that, “the total 11 number of [sexual assault cases against Lyft] is expected to reach and exceed fifty (50) cases.” 12 11. Attached as Exhibit B to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Judicial Council 13 of California form entitled Commission To Take Deposition Outside California pursuant to Code of 14 Civil Procedure section 2026.010, which the parties would need to file in order to initiate requests for 15 out-of-state discovery if this case were to remain in this Court. 16 12. Attached as Exhibit C to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Judicial Council 17 of California’s 2018 COURT STATISTICS REPORT: Statewide Caseload Trends 2007–2008 Through 18 2016–2017, available for download at https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2018-Court-Statistics- 19 Report.pdf, and downloaded on September 3, 2019. 20 21 I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct. 23 Executed this 25th day of September at San Francisco, California. 24 25 26 WARREN METLITZKY 27 28 5 CASE NO. CGC-19-578640 METLITZKY DECL. ISO LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS Exhibit A Exhibit B DISC-030 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO. (Optional): E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: COMMISSION TO TAKE DEPOSITION OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA ORDERED BY COURT ISSUED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT 1. The Superior Court of California hereby authorizes the deposition, upon oral examination, of (identity of deponent): 2. The deposition is to be taken in (state of the United States, territory, or insular possession subject to its jurisdiction): 3. The deposition will be conducted (check one): a. Under the supervision of a person who is authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United States or those of the place where the examination is to be held, and who is not otherwise disqualified under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.320 and 2025.340(b)–(f); or b. Before (name of appointee): who is appointed to administer oaths and to take testimony. 4. The documents or things to be produced at the time and place of the deposition are described in Attachment 4 none. 5. Additional terms required by the foreign jurisdiction to initiate the process are contained in Attachment 5. Number of pages attached: . 6. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2026.010, California authorizes that a commission to take an out-of-state deposition may be issued by the clerk of the court or, if the foreign jurisdiction requires it, by order of the court. 7. The Superior Court of the State of California hereby requests that process issue in the above-referenced place where the examination is to be held, requiring the attendance and enforcing the obligations of the deponent to produce documents and answer questions. Date: _________________________________________ Judge OR Clerk, by ________________________, Deputy Court Seal Page 1 of 1 Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California COMMISSION TO TAKE Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010(f) www.courtinfo.ca.gov DISC-030 [New January 1, 2008] DEPOSITION OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA Exhibit C 2018 COURT STATISTICS REPORT Statewide Caseload Trends 2007–2008 Through 2016–2017 2018 COURT STATISTICS REPORT Statewide Caseload Trends 2007–2008 Through 2016–2017 Judicial Council of California 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102-3688 415-865-7740 California Courts Infoline: 800-900-5980 pubinfo@jud.ca.gov © 2018 by Judicial Council of California. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly provided herein, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online, or mechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute this publication for educational purposes if the copies credit the copyright holder. This report is available on the California Courts website: www.courts.ca.gov/12941.htm#id7495 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA Martin Hoshino Administrative Director Millicent Tidwell Chief Deputy Director Administrative Division John Wordlaw Chief Administrative Officer Budget Services Zlatko Theodorovic Director Office of Court Research Leah Rose-Goodwin Manager Chris Belloli Supervising Research Analyst Emily Chirk Senior Analyst Cheryl King Research Analyst Vy Tran Temporary Analyst II P R E FA C E Court Statistics Report The Court Statistics Report (CSR) is published annually by the Judicial Council of California and is designed to fulfill the provisions of article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution, which requires the Judicial Council to survey the condition and business of the California Courts. The CSR combines 10-year statewide summaries of Superior Court filings and dispositions with similar workload indicators for the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. The 2018 CSR also provides more detailed information on filings and dispositions in the individual Superior Courts for the most recent fiscal year for which data are available, 2016–2017. Caseload Data and Court Workload California’s court system is one of the largest in the world and serves a population of more than 39 million people—about 12 percent of the total U.S. population—and more than 2,000 judicial officers and approximately 18,000 Judicial Branch employees statewide address the full range of cases heard each year. The vast majority of cases in the California Courts begin in one of the 58 superior, or trial, courts, which reside in each of the state’s 58 counties. With more than 500 court buildings throughout the state, these courts hear both civil and criminal cases as well as family, probate, mental health, juvenile, and traffic cases. The data published in the Court Statistics Report is used by the Judicial Branch in policy development, program evaluation, performance management, and in workload analysis to measure judicial and court staff resource needs in California. Because different types of cases require different amounts of judicial and staff resources, a weighted caseload approach is the standard method, nationwide, to estimate the workload and resource needs of the courts. Weighted caseload distinguishes between different categories of filings so that the resources required to process a felony case, for example, are recognized as being much greater than the resources required to process a traffic infraction. As the mix or composition of cases change over time, a weighted caseload approach is needed to assess the impact of caseload trends on court workload. The Judicial Council has adopted caseweights for two workload models used by the Judicial Branch—the Judicial Workload Assessment and the Resource Assessment Study (RAS) model. With the introduction of a new budget development and allocation process for the trial courts in 2013, the data published in the Court Statistics Report is being used by the Judicial Branch for a critically important new purpose. The Judicial Council adopted the Workload-based Allocation and Funding Methodology, or WAFM, which uses the Resource Assessment Model (RAS) and other workload factors in a new budget development process that alters baseline funding for most trial courts based on court workload. Summary of 2018 Court Statistics Report A summary of the caseload data in the 2018 CSR for the California Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and Superior Courts for fiscal year 2016–2017 are as follows: Supreme Court x The Supreme Court issued 92 written opinions during the year. x Filings totaled 7,317, and dispositions totaled 7,262. x Automatic appeals arising out of judgments of death totaled 14 cases, and the court disposed of 20 such appeals by written opinion. Judicial Council of California i 2018 Court Statistics Report x The Supreme Court ordered 5 Court of Appeal opinions depublished in this fiscal year. Courts of Appeal x Total contested matters for the Courts of Appeal totaled 18,717 made up of 12,313 records of appeal and 6,404 original proceedings. x Dispositions in the Courts of Appeal totaled 20,824. Of these dispositions, 15,343 were appeals, and 6,279 were original proceedings. x Dispositions of appeals by written opinion totaled 9,295, appeals disposed of without written opinion totaled 3,921, and appeals disposed of without a record filed totaled 2,127. Dispositions of original proceedings by written opinion totaled 373, and original proceedings disposed of without written opinion totaled 5,906. x Statewide, 9 percent of Court of Appeal majority opinions were published. Superior Courts In FY 2016-17, over 5.8 million cases were filed statewide in the Superior Courts. The CSR organizes all the cases filed in the courts in four main case categories—Civil; Criminal; Family and Juvenile; Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, Habeas. The case filing totals for the individual case types reported by the courts for FY 2016-17 are as follows: Civil: The civil case category is made up of unlimited civil, limited civil, and small claims matters. Civil unlimited cases are matters where the petitioner is seeking more than $25,000. There were 210,028 unlimited civil cases filed in the courts.Limited civil filings are cases where the petitioner is seeking $25,000 or less. Limited civil cases totaled 400,599 statewide. Small claims filings are cases where the petitioner is seeking $10,000 or less and is not represented by counsel. A total of 163,575 small claims cases were filed statewide. Criminal: The criminal case category is made up of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. The filing totals for the individual case types are as follows: felony filings represented 189,013 cases, misdemeanor filings totaled 766,782 cases, and infraction filings accounted for 3,562,687 cases. Family and Juvenile: Marital filings (dissolutions, legal separations and nullities) accounted for 134,756 cases and other family law filings (e.g. paternity, child support) totaled 240,773 cases. Juvenile delinquency filings totaled 32,806 cases and juvenile dependency filings totaled 41,701 cases. Probate, Mental Health, Appeals, and Habeas: The filing totals for the individual case types are as follows: probate filings totaled 49,152 cases; mental health filings totaled 35,316 cases; civil and criminal appeal filings totaled 3,926 cases; and criminal habeas corpus filings totaled 6,511 cases. The decline in total statewide filings over the past year is mostly driven by limited jurisdiction case type-- misdemeanors and infractions in the criminal case category. These limited jurisdiction cases tend to be, on average, much less complex and resource-intensive for courts than unlimited jurisdiction cases such as felonies, civil torts, family and juvenile, probate, and mental health. Several of the most complex types of cases, such as Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (PI/PD/WD), Probate, and Mental Health, had an increase in filings from the previous year. Judicial Council of California ii 2018 Court Statistics Report CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi The California Court System . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii SUPREME COURT . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 23 Total Filings and Dispositions............................................................................................................. 25 Figure 1 Total Filings ......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 2 Total Dispositions ............................................................................................... 25 Filings and Dispositions: Summary .................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3 Petitions for Review............................................................................................ 26 Figure 4 Original Proceedings .......................................................................................... 26 Figure 5 Automatic Appeals.............................................................................................. 26 Figure 6 Habeas Corpus Related To Automatic Appeals ................................................ 26 Figure 7 State Bar Matters ............................................................................................... 26 Data for Figures 3–7: Filings and Dispositions: Summary ............................................................... 27 Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for Review................................................................................... 28 Figure 8 Total Petitions for Review .................................................................................. 28 Figure 9 Civil Total ............................................................................................................. 28 Figure 9a Civil Appeals ........................................................................................................ 28 Figure 9b Civil Writs ............................................................................................................ 28 Figure 10 Criminal Total ...................................................................................................... 28 Figure 10a Criminal Appeals................................................................................................. 28 Figure 10b Criminal Habeas Corpus .................................................................................... 28 Figure 10c Criminal Other Writs ........................................................................................... 28 Data for Figures 8–10c: Filings and Dispositions: Petitions for Review.......................................... 29 Summary of Actions on Petitions for Review..................................................................................... 30 Table 1 Summary of Actions on Petitions for Review .................................................... 30 Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings ................................................................................. 31 Figure 11 Total Original Proceedings ................................................................................. 31 Figure 12 Civil Total ............................................................................................................. 31 Figure 13 Criminal Total ...................................................................................................... 31 Figure 13a Criminal Habeas Corpus .................................................................................... 31 Figure 13b Criminal Other Writs ........................................................................................... 31 Data for Figures 11–13b: Filings and Dispositions: Original Proceedings ...................................... 32 State Bar Matters Filed....................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 14 Total State Bar Matters Filed ............................................................................. 33 Table 2 Types of State Bar Matters Filed ....................................................................... 33 Business Transacted .......................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 15 Written Opinions ................................................................................................. 34 Figure 16 Original Proceedings .......................................................................................... 34 Figure 17 Petitions for Review – Granted .......................................................................... 34 Figure 18 Petitions for Review – Denied ........................................................................... 34 Figure 19 Petitions for Review – Percent Granted ............................................................ 34 Figure 20 Rehearings – Granted ........................................................................................ 34 Figure 21 Rehearings – Denied ......................................................................................... 34 Figure 22 Executive Clemency Applications ...................................................................... 34 Data for Figures 15-22: Business Transacted .................................................................................. 35 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court, Fiscal Years 1998–99 through 2016–17......................................................................................... 36 Figure 23 Depublished Opinions ........................................................................................ 36 Data for Figure 23: Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished by the Supreme Court ......... 37 Capital Cases in Which the Record Was Not Certified for Completeness Within 90 Days, and for Accuracy Within 120 Days ......................................................................... 38 Table 3 ................................................................................................................................... 38 C OURTS OF APPEAL . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 39 Performance Indicator Data ............................................................................................................... 41 Table 1 Performance Indicator Data .............................................................................. 41 Figure 1 Ratio of Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per 100 Appeals Disposed of by Written Opinion ......................................................................... 42 Figure 2 Pending Fully Briefed Appeals per Authorized Justice ..................................... 42 Figure 3 Majority Opinions per Judge Equivalent ............................................................ 42 Caseload Comparisons ....................................................................................................................... 43 Table 2 Caseload Comparisons ...................................................................................... 43 Figure 4 Pending Appeals: Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice .................... 44 Figure 5 Filings and Dispositions: Caseload Comparison per Authorized Justice ........ 44 Summary of Filings ............................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 6 Total Contested Matters .................................................................................... 45 Figure 7 Total Contested Matters per Authorized Justice .............................................. 45 Record of Appeal Filings ..................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 8 All Districts .......................................................................................................... 46 Figure 9 First District......................................................................................................... 46 Figure 10 Second District ................................................................................................... 46 Figure 11 Third District ....................................................................................................... 46 Figure 12 Fourth District ..................................................................................................... 46 Figure 13 Fifth District ........................................................................................................ 46 Figure 14 Sixth District ........................................................................................................ 46 Original Proceedings Filings ............................................................................................................... 47 Figure 15 All Districts .......................................................................................................... 47 Figure 16 First District......................................................................................................... 47 Figure 17 Second District ................................................................................................... 47 Figure 18 Third District ....................................................................................................... 47 Figure 19 Fourth District ..................................................................................................... 47 Figure 20 Fifth District ........................................................................................................ 47 Figure 21 Sixth District ........................................................................................................ 47 Appeals Disposed of by Written Opinion ........................................................................................... 48 Figure 22 Total Appeals ...................................................................................................... 48 Figure 23 Criminal Appeals by Defendants ....................................................................... 48 Figure 24 Criminal Appeals by Prosecution ....................................................................... 48 Figure 25 Civil Appeals ........................................................................................................ 48 Figure 26 Juvenile Appeals (Criminal Violation) ................................................................ 48 Figure 27 Other Juvenile Appeals....................................................................................... 48 Percentage of Majority Opinions Published ...................................................................................... 49 Figure 28 Total Appeals ...................................................................................................... 49 Figure 29 Criminal Appeals................................................................................................. 49 Figure 30 Civil Appeals ........................................................................................................ 49 Figure 31 Juvenile Appeals ................................................................................................. 49 Figure 32 Original Proceedings .......................................................................................... 49 Civil Appeals: Time From Notice of Appeal to Filing Opinion ........................................................... 50 Figure 33 90th Percentile and Median .............................................................................. 50 Criminal Appeals: Time From Notice of Appeal to Filing Opinion .................................................... 51 Figure 34 90th Percentile and Median .............................................................................. 51 Summary of Filings and Dispositions................................................................................................. 52 Table 3 ............................................................................................................................. 52 Summary of Filings ............................................................................................................................. 53 Table 4 ............................................................................................................................. 53 Appeals—Method of Disposition......................................................................................................... 54 Table 5 ............................................................................................................................. 54 Dispositions of Original Proceedings ................................................................................................. 55 Table 6 ............................................................................................................................. 55 Opinions Written ............................................................................................................................. 56 Table 7 ............................................................................................................................. 56 Pending Appeals—Total and Fully Briefed ......................................................................................... 57 Table 8 ............................................................................................................