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, August 10, 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.
Kurwa v. Kislinger, S234617 – Review Granted – August 10, 2016
This case presents the following issue: Can plaintiff take an appeal in the current posture of this litigation?
In its 2013 opinion arising from earlier proceedings in this case, the Supreme Court held that “the parties’ agreement holding some causes of action in abeyance for possible future litigation after an appeal from the trial court’s judgment on others renders the judgment interlocutory and precludes an appeal under the one final judgment rule.” (Kurwa v. Kislinger (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1097, 1100.) The action then returned to the trial court, where the plaintiff sought to extricate himself from his earlier stipulation and then sought to amend his complaint, before again appealing from the original 2010 judgment.
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five, held in an unpublished decision, Kurwa v. Kislinger (Apr. 7, 2016, B264641) 2016 WL 1403371 [nonpub. opn.], that Kurwa had taken an untimely appeal from a nonfinal judgment, and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court has again granted review.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
John Doe v. University of Southern California, S234578 – Review Denied [Liu, J. and Cuéllar, J., voting for review] – August 10, 2016
Student petitioned for writ of administrative mandate challenging his suspension based on findings that he violated student conduct code. The issues are whether: (1) student was afforded a fair hearing; and (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Appeals Panel’s finding that he violated the Student Conduct Code.
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, held in a published opinion, John Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, that: (1) the student was not afforded fair notice of the accusations against him; (2) the student was not afforded a fair hearing; and (3) insufficient evidence supported the university’s findings of student code violations.
Brooks v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, S235268 – Depublished Court of Appeal Opinion – August 10, 2016
The buyer of a “certified” used vehicle brought an action against the dealership seller for violations of the Consumer’s Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on dealership’s alleged failure to comply with statutory requirements for selling a certified used vehicle.
The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held in a published opinion, Brooks v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 973, that: (1) violation of certified used vehicle statute is not “per se” actionable under the CLRA or UCL absent a showing of injury; (2) certified quality inspection document satisfied statutory requirements for a report “indicating all the components inspected”; and (3) dealership “provided” buyer with certified quality inspection document by placing document in vehicle’s glove box. The Supreme Court ordered the opinion depublished.
Marriage of Miller and Cooper, S235113 – Depublished Court of Appeal Opinion – August 10, 2016
In a marital dissolution case, the Superior Court found investment accounts to be the wife’s separate property, found the wife made a down payment from her separate property on a house and ordered that she be reimbursed in that amount, awarded the wife credits for repair and maintenance expenses during the time she lived in the house after separation, and denied the husband’s request to charge the wife the fair rental value of the house.
The Third District Court of Appeal held in a published decision, In re Marriage of Cooper (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 983, that: (1) wife failed to overcome the presumption that jointly titled investment accounts acquired during marriage in joint title form were community property; (2) evidence supported finding that wife had a right to reimbursement for her expenditures on jointly titled investment accounts; (3) wife’s oral testimony was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that she paid the down payment on community property marital residence with her separate property; (4) trial court was required to grant husband’s request to charge wife the fair rental value for her exclusive use of house only as to the period when husband’s redundant dissolution action was not pending; and (5) wife was entitled to reimbursement from the community for her expenditures to maintain the house only as to the period when wife was charged fair rental value. The Supreme Court ordered the opinion depublished.