March 11, 2016
The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, March 9, 2016. 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.
Prometheus Real Estate Group v. Superior Court, S232576—Review granted and held—March 9, 2016.
Review granted and action deferred pending consideration and disposition of Williams v. Superior Court, S227228 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), which raises the following issues: (1) Is the plaintiff in a representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) entitled to discovery of the names and contact information of other “aggrieved employees” at the beginning of the proceeding or is the plaintiff first required to show good cause in order to have access to such information? (2) In ruling on such a request for employee contact information, should the trial court first determine whether the employees have a protectable privacy interest and, if so, balance that privacy interest against competing or countervailing interests, or is a protectable privacy interest assumed? (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1; Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360.)
After issuing a temporary stay of a discovery order and asking for preliminary opposition, the Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four, summarily denied the writ petition.
Lizardo v. Sandeen, S231980—Review granted and transferred—March 9, 2016.
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, dismissed the appeal as untimely because the notice of appeal was filed “far more than 180 days after the . . . judgment.” The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions to reconsider its ruling in light of California Rules of Court, rule 8.25(b)(1) [“A document is deemed filed on the date the clerk receives it”] and Rapp v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172.
Brown v. Superior Court, S232642— Order to Show Cause— March 9, 2015
This case concerns a controversial ballot proposition, Governor Brown’s major prison and parole initiative that would make certain nonviolent felons eligible for early parole. The California District Attorneys Association sought and obtained a Superior Court order preventing the circulation of the initiative for voter signatures.
Governor Brown and other proponents of the measure submitted amendments to the measure, but the trial court ruled the amendments were not, as required by Elections Code section 9002, “reasonably germane to the theme, purpose, or subject of the initiative measure as originally proposed.”
The Governor sought emergency writ relief. The Supreme Court has now issued an order to show cause directing the California District Attorneys Association and Anne Marie Schubert as real parties in interest to show cause why the relief prayed for in the petition for writ of mandate should not be granted.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, S231977—Review denied [Werdegar, J. voting for review]—March 9, 2016.
Petitioner brought action against the county for declaratory judgment challenging the county’s compliance with the constitutional requirement that the Legislature prescribe compensation for judges.
The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, held in a published decision, Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1437, that (1) legislation generally requiring counties to continue paying supplemental judicial benefits provides for a status quo that may go on indefinitely without offending the state constitution, but (2) the part of the statute providing that a “county is also authorized to elect to provide benefits for all judges in the county” is unconstitutional surplusage.