Lemon Law lawyer Michelle Fonseca-Kamana discusses the seismic shifts in California lemon law—from the Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (October 31, 2024) 17 Cal.5th 189 that effectively eliminated most used car claims, to the explosion in case filings (from 4,500 in 2015 to over 22,000 in 2023), to new legislative reforms under AB 1755 and SB 26 that impose strict timelines and mandatory pre-suit notice requirements.

Michelle also shares how she pivoted from in-person networking to social media marketing during the pandemic, built a practice around one-way fee-shifting statutes, and navigates the asymmetric litigation battlefield against billion-dollar manufacturers.

Highlights:

• Rodriguez v. FCA's impact on used-car protections: The Court limited manufacturer liability to certified pre-owned vehicles, leaving used-car buyers without recourse even when cars remain under manufacturer warranty.
• Why lemon law filings quintupled: Despite expectations that Rodriguez would reduce litigation, filings increased fivefold (2015-2023) due to declining vehicle quality, PI firm diversification, and political headwinds.
• New procedural requirements under AB 1755 and SB 26: Effective 2025, consumers must send pre-suit demand letters, wait 30 days, retain the vehicle, meet hard deadlines (one year after warranty expiration or six years from delivery), and navigate an "opt-in" system.
• One-way fee-shifting as equalizer: Song-Beverly allows consumers to bring claims without paying fees—manufacturers pay all costs if consumers prevail.
• Social media as practice-builder: Michelle built her practice through bilingual video content on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, generating clients and referrals without traditional marketing.
• Documentation mistakes: The biggest error is failing to keep itemized repair orders and contemporaneous complaints—gaps that become fatal under new requirements.

Tune in for insights on asymmetric consumer litigation, the intersection of statutory interpretation and real-world consequences, and how procedural reforms quietly reshape substantive rights.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.

You have to literally disobey an order in California to be held in contempt. But federal courts are a little more touchy-feely: they will find a contempt for violating the “spirit” of their orders. Tim and Jeff compare the Ninth Circuit's contempt finding against Apple in the Epic Games dispute, and a state litigant who got around a visitation-time order but without violating the letter of the order, so no contempt.

Meanwhile, a CEQA plaintiff that won at the Court of Appeal—only to be reversed by emergency legislation and the Supreme Court—learned the hard way that "prevailing" on the law as written means nothing if the Legislature rewrites the rules mid-case.

Key points:

• Contempt requires literal violation in California, not just bad faith. But in federal court, violating the “spirit” of an order is contempt.
• Legislative abrogation torpedoed $1.2M in CEQA fees: Plaintiffs in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents won significant CEQA victories establishing that crowd noise and alternative locations must be analyzed—then watched the Legislature pass emergency legislation abrogating both holdings. After the Supreme Court reversed, the Court of Appeal denied nearly $1.2 million in private attorney general fees, calling the prior opinion "smoldering ruins, not citable precedent." The court held plaintiffs weren't "successful parties" because they failed to halt the project, even though they vindicated principles under the law as it existed when filed.
• Ninth Circuit discovery ruling survives en banc review: The court declined to rehear the Trump administration's challenge to a discovery order requiring production of federal reorganization and layoff plans, rejecting executive privilege claims without requiring plaintiffs to show bad faith. Judge Bumatay's dissent warned of a "binding dicta trap" where the panel's comments on what qualifies as deliberative could become binding precedent.
• California Supreme Court limits Public Records Act obligations: Superior Courts can issue declaratory relief even after documents are produced if the dispute is likely to recur, but the Public Records Act does not impose a statutory duty to preserve documents a public agency identifies as exempt.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.

California’s New Legal Rules for 2026: AI, Photo Proof of Service, and Simpler Statements of Decision

New statutes and court rules taking effect in 2026 and 2027 will change how California lawyers serve papers, preserve appellate issues, and disclose their use of artificial intelligence. Appellate attorneys Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis focus on what actually matters in practice—what to fix now, and where the new traps are likely to appear.

The big changes:

• AI in the Courts: Rule of Court 10.430 requires courts to either ban AI use by judicial officers and research attorneys or adopt a formal AI policy with verification and disclosure requirements. Expect cautious policies, broad disclosures, and little tolerance for “the AI did it” excuses.
• One Deadline for Statements of Decision: AB 515 eliminates the short-trial/long-trial distinction. If you want a statement of decision, you must request it before submitting…and you should do it in writing.

Other changes worth noting:

• Photo Proof of Service: Starting January 2027, AB 747 requires process servers to document service attempts with photographs showing GPS coordinates and timestamps.
• Court Reporter Disclosure: AB 711 requires meet-and-confer declarations to disclose whether court reporter attendance was discussed and the outcome.
• Electronic Service Authorized: SB 85 allows courts to approve service by email or electronic means when traditional service fails.
• Expanded Mediation Authority: Courts may order mediation in cases up to $75,000 if at least one party requests it and no discovery disputes are pending.
• AI Disclosure in Bankruptcy Court: The Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court now requires disclosure of AI tools used and certification of independent accuracy review.

Listen now to understand what to change in your templates and where the next procedural missteps are waiting.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.

AI-sanctions might get eyeballs, but the bigger sanctions are still for plain old bad lawyering. Jeff also raises this ethical and pragmatic question: who defends the lawyer when sanctions threaten the client? Should counsel facing an OSC retain separate counsel for the sanctions component to avoid divided attention and better protect client interests? What if the costs of independent counsel are likely to exceed the sanction?

• $25K for using Anti-SLAPP as a litigation weapon. A bare-bones anti-SLAPP was amplified by record emails suggesting the strategy was to inflict cost and pain rather than win on the merits.
• $13K for relitigating the merits through a fee appeal. The appeal purported to challenge fees, but largely recycled arguments already rejected in the prior appeal. The court finds the effort both objectively meritless and subjectively aimed at rehashing settled ground.
• <$2K for fabricated authority & thin explanations. Schlichter v. Kennedy results in $1,750 against an attorney who relied on nonexistent or inapposite citations and offered credibility-challenged explanations about verification methods. After the court’s exhaustive point-by-point teardown, the monetary sanction seems merciful.
• Pro per’s sanction is dismissal of appeal. In Arno Kuglua v. Young Park, the Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal for failure to support arguments with proper authority.

Also: AI guidance from the courts**:** The California Courts of Appeal publish user-facing AI guidance emphasizing verification, independent source-checking, and personal accountability for filings—even if AI assists with drafting.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.

A scandalous Netflix documentary called an unconventional sex-based therapy business an “orgasm cult,” all based on a sole source whose account has several flaws. But the Court of Appeal dismissed the defamation case on anti-SLAPP grounds. Tim and Jeff discuss whether any California defamation case against a media company could survive the one-two punch of anti-SLAPP and NY Times v. Sullivan. They also discuss California’s unique approach to standing—it’s not jurisdictional, it’s purely pragmatic.

• Anti-SLAPP meets documentary defamation: OneTaste Inc. v. Netflix illustrates how courts evaluate actual malice when the plaintiff is treated as at least quasi-public, and how journalistic discretion can sink a claim even where the plaintiff says it provided contrary evidence before publication. Tim flags the built-in squeeze: if public-figure status and the controversy are intertwined, the plaintiff may need discovery to prove merit, but cannot get discovery without first showing merit.
• Standing without injury, by design, not accident: Kashanian v. National Enterprise Systems tees up a standing fight over technical FDCPA disclosure issues, think small-font compliance, with no alleged real-world harm. The takeaway is not subtle: in California, legislative authorization can do a lot of work, and no harm does not necessarily mean no case.
• When the statute creates the bounty, sanctions become the guardrail: The hosts debate whether CCP 128.5 and CCP 128.7 actually deter nuisance filings when the underlying enforcement scheme invites penalty-driven litigation. Is it appropriate—or wise—to use our courts as civil bounty enforcement, devoid of any harm requirement?
• Juror privacy is real, ask the team that wrote the $10,000 check: Don’t research prospective jurors on social media.
• Minute entry, real consequences: A timing skirmish over whether a minute entry can function as an appeal-triggering order ends, for now, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining review. Be conservative in calculating the time to appeal

Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.

Want to know why bad AI cites really bother the courts? Jeff and Tim discuss two recent fake-AI-cites cases imposing sanctions and State Bar referrals, and draw this conclusion: It’s not that AI is bad at law—in one of these cases, the court noted that none of the AI mistakes even went in the direction of helping the offending party. Rather, the problem is that AI is just bad at citing and quoting the law. And the courts are super-protective against our legal canon becoming polluted with hallucinations.

• Blame game backfires: In Shayan v. Shakib, appellant’s counsel blamed non-attorney staff for adding the bad AI cites to the brief. The mistakes didn’t really change the arguments, and the court ordered counsel to file a corrected version. But the outcome is going to be the same, plus $7500 sanctions and a State Bar referral.
• Gatekeeping function: Courts emphasize that even when fabricated citations don't advance a party's position, they still threaten "the integrity of courts and the legal profession" by risking that fake law becomes cited as real precedent.
• We discuss updates in the Boies Schiller/Scientology case, and whether these recent cases predict the result.
• Voluntary dismissal dilemma: Tim’s firm filed an amicus brief in the Maniago case, arguing that voluntary dismissals with prejudice should be treated as appealable final judgments, challenging the rule that clerk-entered dismissals are merely "ministerial acts."
• Heated bench: A Texas redistricting case features an unusually scathing dissent beginning with "The main winners from Judge Brown's opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom," raising questions about appropriate judicial temperament.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.

The California Supreme Court’s long-awaited "Taking Offense" decision on gender pronouns in elder care facilities introduces a new “captive audience” exception to the First Amendment. Tim worries this new judicial carve out may creep to other forums; Jeff is unperturbed. Tim also shares insights from the Federalist Society National Conference, before examining a significant appellate-fee ruling.

• Taking Offense v. State (Cal., Nov. 6, 2025, No. S270535) **holds that advocacy groups lack taxpayer standing under CCP §526a to challenge state laws, but still issued 100+ pages addressing the merits through a "captive audience" framework.
• Captive audience concerns: Tim highlights potential "mission creep" with a “captive audience” rationale, potentially extending beyond elder care facilities to courthouses, government offices, and other venues where First Amendment protections could be weakened.
• “Bloodthirsty originalism”: From the Federalist Society conference, Judge Bumatay advocated less deference to stare decisis in favor of constitutional fidelity, while Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh addressed courage and civility in legal practice.
• Discovery fee windfall: In Baer v. Tedder, the court authorized recovery of $113,000 in appellate attorney fees for successfully defending a $10,000 discovery sanction, creating economics similar to anti-SLAPP appeals.
• AI arbitration arrives: The American Arbitration Association announced a pilot program offering AI resolution of construction disputes with human oversight, signaling that AI's impact on legal practice may be just "a couple of years away" rather than decades.
• Oral argument mastery: Federal Circuit judges advised narrowing issues to increase credibility, welcoming judicial interruptions as opportunities, and viewing argument time as the court's time for conversation rather than presentation.

Tune in for practical insights on appellate strategy, the evolving legal landscape, and how to prepare for significant changes in legal practice in the coming years.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.

Jimmy Azadian is often in the room when federal judges get together to share their personal concerns about the job. When judges are asked to come speak to a group, Jimmy reports that top of mind are the recent threats to judges and the courts—whether from armed vigilantes, protesters, students, or senators.

Jimmy, Tim, and Jeff then turn to some recent SCOTUS and 9th Circuit trends:

• Standing Doctrine Evolution: Courts are scrutinizing what constitutes concrete injury, particularly since Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined the Supreme Court, with increased scrutiny of statutory damages and class action requirements.
• Birthright Citizenship Battle: In Washington v. Trump, the 9th Circuit held that the 2025 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. But Judge Bumatay's partial dissent questioned states' standing, based on “fiscal” concerns, as too tenuous.
• Anti-SLAPP Shake-up: The en banc 9th Circuit in Gopher Media unanimously held that denials of California anti-SLAPP motions in federal court are no longer immediately appealable, reversing 22-23 years of precedent and potentially driving forum shopping.
• California Laws Preview: New 2026 laws include immigration enforcement limits at schools, required social media account deletion options, restrictions on facial coverings for immigration agents, direct Cal State University admission standards, and regulation of commercial audio volume.

Tune in for essential perspectives on judicial independence, constitutional interpretation, and strategic considerations that could impact your federal practice in the coming year.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.