John Mitch Mitchell joins Tim Kowal to unpack Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, a July 2026 California Supreme Court decision that shuts down a procedural shortcut California litigators have been relying on for years. Mitchell, who represented the plaintiffs on appeal, offers a candid, behind-the-scenes look at how a carefully planned litigation strategy turned into a cautionary tale.

The story starts with a surgical technologist who was exposed to HIV during a cardiac procedure and sued on several different theories. After the trial court sustained a demurrer on most of the claims, Mitchell dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice and filed a declaration explaining that he was doing so only to fast‑track an appeal. Even though this followed what had been the majority approach in the case law, both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court threw out the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously holding that a voluntary dismissal waives the right to appeal when the trial court has not yet finally resolved any claim.

In doing so, the Supreme Court disapproved Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency and other decisions that had blessed this workaround, leaving practitioners with a tough choice. They can either follow the Court’s new three-step procedure and permanently give up any remaining viable claims, or litigate straight through to final judgment before they can challenge a damaging interlocutory ruling on appeal.

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why voluntary dismissal no longer creates an appealable order after an adverse demurrer ruling
• The three-step procedure the Supreme Court says litigants must follow instead
• The practical and economic consequences for plaintiffs facing case-altering interlocutory orders
• The line of authority the court disapproved and what still survives

Have you tried the voluntary‑dismissal workaround in your own cases? Maniago may hit close to home.

Why do tenants' rights cases end up on appeal—and what happens when the Ellis Act gets weaponized? Tenants' rights appellate attorney Fran Campbell joins Jeff Lewis as a guest host while Tim Kowal is on vacation, sharing hard-won insight from landlord-tenant litigation, mobile home park law, and the appellate front lines of California's housing crisis.

Key points:

• The Ellis Act and Barrington Plaza: Campbell's firm challenged Douglas Emmett's attempt to invoke the Ellis Act to remove roughly 750 tenants, raising a statutory interpretation question under Gov. Code § 7060.7.
• Supersedeas strategy: Collecting rent from remaining tenants while an appeal is pending may inadvertently create new periodic tenancies — a risk Campbell says practitioners often overlook.
• Berk v. Choy: The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous ruling could further erode California's anti-SLAPP protections in federal court, with significant implications for practitioners.
• Social media as abuse: A June 2026 Second District opinion holds that social media conduct can qualify as cognizable abuse under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
• Conflict waivers and fee agreements: Failing to obtain a conflict waiver can void not just a fee agreement but its arbitration clause too — per Jane Doe v. McGrath.

Tenants' rights practitioners: Have you faced an Ellis Act claim where the landlord's intent was the deciding issue? Share your experience in the comments.

One California city has been quietly collecting $5,000-per-incident fines from short-term vacation rental owners. And if the regime is struck down, the city may owe half a million dollars back.

Former constitutional law attorney David Koslow joins Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis to break down two Appellate Division challenges that expose a structural flaw in how cities administer and collect STVR fines, and why SEC v. Jarkesy may be the tool that finally pries these cases open.

Key points:

• The $1,000 cap hiding in plain sight: Government Code §36901 sets a default $1,000 ceiling on city fines—but Cathedral City and several other Coachella Valley municipalities have been imposing $5,000 first-offense STVR penalties for years.
• Forfeiture swallowed the first case whole: In Montanaro v. City of Cathedral City, the pro per defendant said the fine was "draconian"—but never said "excessive fines clause." The Court of Appeal dismissed on forfeiture. “Draconian,” says the court, is not the same as “excessive.” 🧐
• Jarkesy goes local—maybe: SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) held that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury-trial forum when the government chooses between administrative and court proceedings for civil penalties. Cathedral City can prosecute STVR violations as misdemeanors in court or through an administrative citation—which, says Koslow, is exactly the kind of forum election Jarkesy targets.
• The vendor-as-judge problem: Data Ticket, Inc.—a private company that collects the city's fines—also supplies the hearing officers who adjudicate them. The structural conflict is not subtle, and it has already spawned its own litigation.
• Pro per litigants are walking into a trap: STVR fines are deliberately calibrated below the cost of hiring an attorney, yet high enough to hurt. The result is a steady stream of self-represented defendants making fatal procedural errors that appellate counsel cannot fix.
• The Coastal Commission wrinkle: Coastal cities face a distinct constraint—the Commission treats STVR bans as restrictions on public coastal access, effectively foreclosing outright prohibitions in the coastal zone.

If you advise cities on enforcement program design, represent property owners facing administrative fines, or litigate issues of constitutional preservation and forfeiture, this episode is required listening before your next city council meeting or appellate brief.