Why we ‘just shut down our courts’

"Why is it that we don't just shut down our courts?" begins the March 3 op-ed article by former judge Mary Thornton House. While Judge House makes fair points about the essential nature of some courts, her conclusion is overbroad. Traffic and unlawful detainer courts are different and should not be proceeding in person.

As leaders at civil legal aid organizations with attorneys representing Los Angeles's most vulnerable litigants in traffic and eviction matters throughout the height of the pandemic, we maintain that the safety risk of the ongoing operation of these courts has been unacceptable. Even as at least three court staff members have tragically died of the COVID-19 virus, our clients and attorneys have been forced time and time again to risk their health and the health of their loved ones over matters as minor as rent disputes and broken taillight tickets.

Though Judge House claims that Los Angeles County Superior Court implemented stringent health and safety practices across all courts, as practitioners we have observed dramatic discrepancies. We focus on traffic and eviction courts because these are the courts where we observe repeated health and safety violations. Such conditions are particularly unconscionable because these matters can be readily postponed.

Judge House argues that scheduled eviction hearings cannot be postponed because the deadlines for eviction proceedings are regulated by the legislature, not the courts. But while the first trial date must be set within 20 days of a request, judges have unlimited discretion to grant continuances. Many eviction cases have not proceeded to trial by statutory deadlines. Rather, depending on the risk assessment of each individual judge, some trials were set many months into the future, while others proceeded in-person at the height of Los Angeles' winter surge.

Judge House proposes that legal aid organizations establish free outdoor kiosks across Los Angeles County to facilitate remote appearances for litigants with limited access to technology. This suggestion sidesteps the court's responsibility; it is not the job of nonprofit organizations to develop infrastructure so that people can access the courts. Moreover, it is unclear what problem such a resource-intensive effort would solve, as remote appearances for jury trials are not permissible. Most importantly, our organizations did reach out to the court in an effort to engage in the problem-solving process -- each separately throughout the fall, and then in joint letters sent on Dec. 2, 2020 and Jan. 6, 2021. Each of our attempts to engage was declined.

As the court weighs risks and determines which of its services are essential and which are not, it remains unclear why unlawful detainer courts continue to proceed in person. Jury trials in most criminal cases have been continued for months, with the most recent extension granted through March 26, 2021. This difficult decision implicates the constitutional rights, not to mention the physical liberty, of affected parties. Comparatively, justice does not require a prioritization of in-person adjudication of unlawful detainer matters.

The same questions of priority arise in consideration of traffic court. Judge House characterizes the traffic courts as both safe and optional. In reality, traffic courts reopened for mandatory, stacked in-person appearances in crowded courtrooms in the fall and proceeded uninterrupted throughout the winter surge, prioritizing the efficient resolution of cases over the safety of traffic court defendants. In defense of the ongoing in-person operation of traffic court, Judge House makes a number of representations that are inaccurate.

First, Judge House writes that all calendars are staggered. This is not correct; 10 or more traffic matters are calendared simultaneously in every available time slot. Second, Judge House writes that automatic extensions are granted on traffic matters without the need to appear in person. But the last order of this type was issued on Aug. 18, 2020 and expired on Oct. 14, 2020. Third, Judge House writes that no holds are placed on licenses. But since traffic courts reopened for arraignments in September 2020, the court has not announced nor effectuated any limitations on its longstanding practice of sending failure to appear notices to the DMV that generate license suspensions.

Judge House emphasizes that traffic defendants opt to schedule their trials. In reality, defendants have little choice. During the time the court was closed, it did not automatically lift old license holds; instead it required defendants to either pay or calendar their citation to seek reinstatement of their licenses. Now that courts have reopened, these calendared cases cannot be rescheduled by defendants, only attended or missed. This is true even if a defendant has tested positive for COVID-19.

Judge House claims that "no traffic defendant need appear in person." But defendants who can neither pay their citation nor accept the consequence of a suspended license have no other option. The court has not offered a remote option for traffic trials. Trial by written declaration is not an acceptable substitute as it deprives defendants the right to cross-examine the citing officer. Indeed, the court offers de novo in-person trials for all defendants who have opted into trial by written declaration, in recognition of the inadequacy of this remote "alternative."

Each and every day that courts have been open, including at the height of the pandemic, hundreds of traffic court defendants have shown up to courts across Los Angeles County in-person. These defendants did not attend court because of their zeal to battle out their citations in person at risk to their lives. They attended court because they had to. They attended court because of the ongoing imposition and enforcement of consequences ranging from license suspensions to financial penalties to points on driving records and because of the absence of a policy permitting traffic defendants to reschedule their appearances.

As organizations who have had legal aid attorneys on the ground in traffic and eviction courtrooms across Los Angeles in the midst of this deadly pandemic, we have seen our staff experience endless nights of worry and stress. We speak from personal experience. While we had hoped to reach a consensus with the court on an appropriate solution, that has not been possible. Our attorneys have been in court since last fall and will continue to show up, through surges and variants, navigating crowded hallways and courtrooms, as long as the court demands our presence to help our clients get the best possible outcomes. 