The following is a summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, July 29, 2015. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California v. Superior Court, S227106—Review Granted—July 29, 2015
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does information collected by police using “automated license plate readers” — high-speed cameras that automatically scan and record the license plate numbers and time, date and location of every passing vehicle without suspicion of criminal activity — constitute law enforcement “records of . . . investigations” that are permanently exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act in accordance with Government Code section 6254, subdivision (f)?
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, held in a published decision, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 673, that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s and Police Departments had the right to refuse a request under the Public Records Act for disclosure of a single week’s worth of data produced by Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology because the data is considered “records of investigations conducted for the purpose of uncovering information surrounding the commission of the violation [of law] and its agency.” (Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1071.)
DisputeSuite.com v. Scoreinc.com, S226652—Review Granted—July 29, 2015
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying an award of attorney fees in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Were defendants entitled to an award of attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 as the prevailing parties in an action on a contract when they obtained the dismissal of the action on procedural grounds pursuant to a Florida forum selection clause?
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two, held in a published opinion, DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1261, that, where a defendant obtains an interim procedural victory that results only in a relocation of an active contract dispute from one forum to another, there has been no final resolution of the contract claims and therefore it would be premature to make a prevailing party determination. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendants their attorney fees for obtaining a dismissal of the case in California based on a Florida forum-selection clause.
Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, S227393—Review Granted—July 29, 2015
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting the plaintiff a new trial in a medical malpractice. This case presents the following issue: Are the time constraints in California Code of Civil Procedure section 659a jurisdictional such that a court cannot consider late-filed documents?
Disagreeing with an earlier Court of Appeal opinion, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held in a published decision, Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1294, that, as long as a notice of intention to move for a new trial is timely, the late filing of supporting papers does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to grant a new trial.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)