WASHINGTON – Sid Kanazawa, president of NAPABA, issued the following statement in response to the confirmations of Judge Jinsook Ohta to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and Judge Shalina D. Kumar to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan:
“NAPABA congratulates Judge Ohta on her confirmation to become the first Asian American woman to serve as an Article III judge in the Southern District of California. She has a career in public service, serving as a judge on the California Superior Court and as a Supervising Deputy Attorney General in California. Judge Ohta has strong ties to the AAPI community as an active member of NAPABA and the Korean American Bar Association of San Diego. We thank Senators Feinstein and Padilla for recommending Judge Ohta.
“NAPABA congratulates Judge Kumar on her historic confirmation to the Eastern District of Michigan. She is the first Asian American to serve as an Article III judge on the federal courts in Michigan. Judge Kumar has extensive experience on the bench, serving as Chief Judge of the Oakland County Sixth Circuit Court in Michigan covering both civil and criminal matters. We thank Senators Stabenow and Peters for recommending Judge Kumar.
“December 2021 has been a historic month with a record four AAPI women judges confirmed by the Senate. We applaud Leader Schumer for his leadership and the Senate for swiftly confirming these nominees, and we thank President Biden for his commitment to diversifying the judiciary.”
Judge Ohta served as a Superior Court Judge for the Superior Court in San Diego County. Previously, she worked in the Consumer Protection Section of the California Attorney General’s Office as Supervising Deputy Attorney General. Judge Ohta clerked for the Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and is a graduate of Yale University and New York University School of Law.
Judge Kumar has been on the bench since 2007, and over the years, has served as a presiding judge of the Adult Treatment Court, the Chairperson of the Oakland County Criminal Assignment Committee, the bench liaison to the Oakland County Bar Association Circuit Court Committee, a member of the Michigan State Bar Professionalism Committee, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Michigan Judges’ Association. She is a graduate of the University of Michigan and the University of Detroit-Mercy School of Law.
The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), represents the interests of over 60,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting APA communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.
As a young practitioner, I often found the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to be a daunting and dizzying set of rules. How do I know if I need to file a summons or summons and complaint? When do I file a Request for Judicial Intervention? How do I establish jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute? What is the statute of limitations to commence an Article 78 proceeding? Before diving into electronic searches, my first stop was often to peruse the treatises in the firm’s law library or from the collections of more senior associates. While electronic research was the norm even when I was in law school, I still found flipping through the hard copy books to be beneficial. I advise the associates who now work for me to do the same.
Thus, I had a great deal of nostalgia when I opened the box containing the ten-volume set of hard-covered books (and one soft-covered index) of this treatise. They now take up a prominent and easy-to-reach location on my bookshelf. This is the Fifth Edition of this treatise that was first published in 1995 and last updated in 2015. The 156 chapters cover more than just the step-by-step practical advice for every phase of litigation. There are 64 chapters covering some of the most commonly encountered areas of substantive law in commercial cases, including contracts, securities, business torts, antitrust, and intellectual property. The authors of each chapter are a veritable “Who’s Who” of prominent practitioners and jurists. Each chapter begins with a “Scope Note” providing a brief overview of the chapter within and each chapter ends with “Practice Aids” usually consisting of checklists and sample forms. The chapters also contain helpful cross-references to other chapters within the treatise when they touch upon those subjects.
As someone who typically practices in federal court, I found the chapters that compare and contrast the various rules in federal and state court and outline the benefits and pitfalls of each forum particularly helpful. Naturally, Chapter 11 (Comparison with Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts) is a prime example with a checklist of key distinctions between the federal rules and the CPLR. It also outlines some important differences in discovery, including the blanket stay of discovery pending the determination of a motion to dismiss in state court and the somewhat piecemeal approach governing electronic discovery in state court as opposed to the federal rules. Similarly, Chapter 39 (Practice Before the Commercial Division) is a must-read to understand how the statewide rules of the Commercial Division differ and/or interact with the CPLR, especially in discovery. I have also relied on many of the substantive legal chapters as references. For example, Chapter 124 (Antitrust Litigation) provides a thorough overview of the Donnelly Act and the common threads between antitrust litigation in federal court and at the state level.
I have also tabbed the over 500 pages within Chapter 8 (Responses to Complaints) which expertly outlines the procedural steps and the myriad of tactical decisions that arise after a plaintiff files its initial papers. It is not limited to the issues faced by a responding defendant but also summarizes plaintiff’s options when facing a motion to dismiss. I recently relied on the discussion regarding general and specific denials to explain to a client, who is normally in a jurisdiction that permits a single non-specific denial of all allegations in the complaint, why specific denials were necessary in New York. I also used the overview of CPLR 3211 to explain how our approach to a motion to dismiss would differ in state court if we chose not to remove to federal court.
This latest edition adds 28 new chapters from the prior version addressing increasingly important issues to litigators today. These chapters cover a wide range of topics such as Artificial Intelligence, Comparison with Commercial Litigation in Delaware Courts, Fashion and Retail, Private Equity, and Third-Party Litigation Funding, to name a few. One new addition — Chapter 14 (Business Courts)—provides an excellent overview for proceeding in these specialized tribunals around the country. It lays out various pretrial procedural factors that a litigator should consider before commencing an action in any business court and highlights the practice in jurisdictions such as New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, and Arizona. With a large part of my practice involving litigation with foreign parties, I found Chapter 13 (Comparison with Commercial Litigation in Foreign Courts) and Chapter 23 (Cross-Border Litigation) as welcome additions. Chapter 13 sets forth a broad overview of practicing in two common law countries (England and Australia) and three civil law countries (France, Germany, and Russia). Chapter 23 offers an exceptional summary of data privacy issues from foreign jurisdictions and an overview of various forms of injunctive relief that should be considered to preserve or restore the status quo.
Finally, as a former affinity bar president and as someone with an active role in diversity and inclusion efforts within my firm, I was excited to see Chapter 83, the inaugural chapter on Diversity & Inclusion in commercial litigation in New York. The chapter amplifies many of the well-known reasons of why diversity is important to litigators: diverse and inclusive teams generate more innovative and creative results by bringing different perspectives to bear; diversity and inclusion is important to clients and judges; and, increasingly diverse juror pools connect better to diverse trial teams. It stresses the importance of intentionally including diverse perspectives in every aspect of litigation from pre-complaint through trial. While I wish there was more in-depth discussion of best practices, I appreciated the spotlight on the importance of implicit bias training and of firm management’s leadership of these efforts in order to improve the retention of diverse attorneys.
I have only scratched the surface of the numerous topics and features of this treatise. From my perspective, all litigators would benefit from this invaluable resource.
Brian W. Song is a Partner in the New York Office of BakerHostetler. He represents clients in complex commercial litigation and criminal matters in state and federal courts. Brian has particular experience in the areas of securities litigation and white collar criminal defense, where he has represented clients in connection with investigations conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and state regulators. Brian is a former President of the Asian American Bar Association of New York.
On December 15, AABANY’s Intellectual Property Committee hosted a Committee Dinner at Dhaba Indian Cuisine on East 28th Street. A mix of law students (some who just completed their law school final exams!) and practitioners attended. Conversation topics included career transitions, life as an IP litigator, life as in-house counsel, and upcoming holiday plans. As always, new members are always welcome at the IP Committee dinners. We hope to see you at the next one. Please also reach out with event ideas! To learn more about the IP Committee go to https://www.aabany.org/page/145
WASHINGTON – The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), together with the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Tampa Bay (APABA-TB), the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of South Florida (APABA-SF), the Greater Orlando Asian American Bar Association (GOAABA), and the Jacksonville Asian American Bar Association (JAABA) (collectively, the “Florida Affiliates”) express their strong disappointment with the Florida Supreme Court’s decision reaffirming its own ban on Florida lawyers receiving credit for continuing legal education (CLE) courses that employ certain diversity requirements on their panels. In June, NAPABA and the Florida Affiliates filed comments before the Florida Supreme Court urging the court to recognize that advancing diversity through these requirements fosters inclusivity, and does not exclude any viewpoint. Unfortunately, the court continued to mischaracterize these efforts as harmful and discriminatory. The diversity requirements championed by NAPABA, our Florida Affiliates, the American Bar Association, and dozens of other organizations are additive and not subtractive. They do not discriminate against any person or group, but rather they uplift voices long silenced. As we have noted previously, the stated goal of the policy was to eliminate bias, increase diversity, and implement tactics aimed at recruiting and retaining diverse attorneys.
The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), represents the interests of over 60,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting APA communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.
WASHINGTON –Today, President Biden nominated Judge Kenly Kiya Kato to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
“NAPABA congratulates Judge Kato on her nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. She is an experienced jurist and has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on that court since 2014,” said Sid Kanazawa, president of NAPABA. “Judge Kato’s life experience, as a daughter whose parents and family were incarcerated during World War II solely because they were of Japanese descent, has shaped her interest in constitutional protections and her work to ensure access to justice. Active in the AAPI community in Riverside, CA, she is a member of the Asian Pacific American Lawyers of the Inland Empire.
“We thank President Biden for nominating Judge Kato, and Senators Feinstein and Padilla for recommending her. With only 30 out of the 673 district court judges being AAPI, we urge the Senate to quickly confirm Judge Kato.”
Judge Kato serves as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Prior to her appointment to the bench, she maintained a private practice and has served as a deputy federal public defender. Judge Kato was a law clerk to the late Judge Robert M. Takasugi of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and is a graduate of the University of California at Los Angeles and Harvard Law School.
The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), represents the interests of over 60,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting APA communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed Jennifer Sung to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Sung is the first AAPI to serve on the Ninth Circuit in Oregon—a state where Asians are the fastest-growing group and now make up six percent of the state’s population.
“NAPABA congratulates Jennifer Sung on her historic confirmation to the Ninth Circuit to become the first AAPI to serve in Oregon,” said Sid Kanazawa, president of NAPABA. “Judge Sung has a long career serving as an advocate for AAPIs and workers across the nation. We are thankful to Leader Schumer for bringing her nomination for a floor vote, Senators Wyden and Merkley for recommending Judge Sung, and President Biden for nominating her.
“Today there are twelve AAPI federal appellate court judges out of 179 and there has never been a AAPI on the U.S. Supreme Court. The confirmation of Judge Sung highlights an important and urgent need for greater representation of our community on the courts.”
Judge Sung is a member of the Oregon Employment Relations Board and was previously an executive board member of the New York chapter of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance. She was a partner at McKanna Bishop Joffe, LLP in Portland. Judge Sung is a graduate of Oberlin College and Yale Law School.
Judge Sung’s confirmation follows the confirmation of Judge Lucy H. Koh to the Ninth Circuit on Monday.
The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), represents the interests of over 60,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting APA communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.
