In this Federal Courts Committee newsletter, we interview two leaders from California’s federal bench, and includes an overview of our recent four-district panel discussing Covid-19’s impact on Federal Court Operations.
1. Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo. Judge Castillo shares his experience transitioning from advocate to neutral and his views on what makes a good and successful advocate and on the importance of civility and professionalism in the courts.
2. Chief Judge Dana Makoto Sabraw. Judge Sabraw discusses his experiences during his first six months as Chief Judge, the issues facing the Southern District of California, and the Southern District of California’s success in working through the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. A Statutory Claim Is Not Enough. No Concrete Harm, No Standing. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the existence of a statutory claim (with statutory damages) combined with a risk of future harm, is not enough to confer standing to sue for damages in federal court. Citing Spokeo v. Robbins, 578 U. S. 330, the Court held that “[t]o have Article III standing to sue in federal court, plaintiffs must demonstrate, among other things, that they suffered a concrete harm.” Slip Op.at1. “Central to assessing concreteness is whether the asserted harm has a ‘close relationship’ to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.” Id.
Christian G. Andrequ-von Euw, Morrison & Foerster
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Eddie A. Jauregui, Holland & Knight
Jamil R. Ghannam, City of Stockton City Attorney’s Office