On the day that Governor Jerry Brown announced the upcoming appointment of their newest colleague, the Supreme Court justices were unusually busy at their Wednesday conference.  Actions of note included:

  • The court granted review in Monster Energy Company v. Schechter, limiting the issues to these:  “(1) When a settlement agreement contains confidentiality provisions that are explicitly binding on the parties and their attorneys and the attorneys sign the agreement under the legend ‘APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT,’ have the attorneys consented to be bound by the confidentiality provisions?  (2) When evaluating the plaintiff’s probability of prevailing on its claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b), may a court ignore extrinsic evidence that supports the plaintiff’s claim, or accept the defendant’s interpretation of an undisputed but ambiguous fact over that of the plaintiff?”  In a published opinion, the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal answered the first question in the negative.
  • Well, well, well.  One grant of review and two grant-and-holds in cases regarding whether the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental review for the placement of water wells.  The lead case is Protecting Our Water & Environmental Resources v. Stanislaus County, where the Fifth District, in an unpublished opinion, concluded CEQA review is required, but it was not happy with the result, stating “it is troublesome that, for most well construction permits, the costly, time-consuming environmental review process may commonly prove unnecessary, or ultimately result in only minor alterations to the proposed well’s location.”  The grant-and-holds are California Water Impact Network v. County of San Luis Obispo, which yielded a published opinion by the Second District, Division Six, holding that CEQA review is not required for water well permits, at least not in San Luis Obispo County; and Coston v. Stanislaus County, an unpublished opinion from the same Fifth District panel that decided the Protecting Our Water matter and reaching the same conclusion.
  • The court went into high gear responding to the Governor’s many requests for clemency recommendations.  Using its deferential standard of review, it approved 10 more requests, for:  Deryl Armstrong, to commute a sentence of life without parole for a murder; Derrick Burton, to pardon his convictions for DUI and hit-and-run causing injury, drug possession, and burglary; John Manning, to commute his LWOP murder sentence plus a 5-year firearm enhancement;  Tin Nguyen, to commute his LWOP murder sentence plus 4 years for murder, robbery, and two firearm enhancements; Jose Padilla, to pardon his two separate convictions for receiving stolen property; Curtis Roberts, to commute two 25-years-to-life burglary sentences; Deborah Seal, to pardon her two convictions for transporting a controlled substance; Larry Thompson, to pardon his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and for transporting or selling a narcotic controlled substance; James White, to commute his LWOP murder sentence plus eight years for murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and a firearm enhancement; and John Zech, to pardon his convictions for possession of concentrated cannabis and for possession of a controlled substance.
  • The court issued a grant-and-hold order in Geiser v. Kuhns.  Action on that case is deferred pending a decision in FilmOn v. DoubleVerify, Inc., in which review was granted a year ago and which raises the anti-SLAPP issue, in determining whether challenged activity furthers the exercise of constitutional free speech rights on a matter of public interest within the meaning of Civil Code section 425.16, should a court take into consideration the commercial nature of that speech, including the identity of the speaker, the identity of the audience and the intended purpose of the speech?  The 2-1 unpublished opinion by the Second District, Division Five, in Geiser held that the anti-SLAPP statute didn’t apply to a petition for civil harassment restraining orders to stop demonstrations in front of the plaintiff’s home and office by the defendants who were seeking to prevent the eviction of two of the defendants from their home.
  • The court denied review in People v. Rodriguez, but depublished the opinion of the Fourth District, Division One.  Also, Justices Goodwin Liu and Leondra Kruger recorded votes to grant review.  The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction for, among other things, burglary based on the defendant’s use of hotel rooms he had rented to have sex with a minor.
  • The court depublished the 2-1 opinion in Time Warner Cable v. County of Los Angeles, where the Second District, Division One, determined how much LA County could tax Time Warner for Time Warner’s use of public rights-of-way to provide cable television, broadband, and telephone services.
  • There were three criminal case grant-and-holds, four former grant-and-holds dismissed or transferred, and eight criminal case grant-and-transfers.