At its Wednesday conference, the Supreme Court’s actions of note included:

  • The court granted review in Shalabi v. City of Fontana, in which the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal held in a published opinion that a plaintiff had filed his lawsuit just in time, rather than a day late as the superior court had ruled.  A 135-year-old Supreme Court opinion — Ganahl v. Soher (1884) 2 Cal.Unrep. 415 [5 P. 80] — seems contrary to the appellate court’s decision, but that court didn’t let Auto Equity Sales stand in its way, stating that, “Because Ganahl did not cite [Code of Civil Procedure] section 12 [the statute the Court of Appeal found controlling] or explain how the court could create an exception to a law created by the Legislature, we conclude Ganahl is not binding authority on the issue of how to calculate time under section 12.”  (Brackets and link added.)  The Supreme Court has limited review in Shalabi to the issue, “In cases where the statute of limitations is tolled, is the first day after tolling ends included or excluded in calculating whether an action is timely filed?”
  • For the third time, the court ordered supplemental briefing in Facebook v. Superior Court (Touchstone), a case regarding a criminal defendant’s right to obtain social media communications of others.  (See here and here.)
  • The court also ordered supplemental briefing in Frlekin v. Apple Inc., a Ninth Circuit-referred wage-and-hour matter.  The briefing is to address the case’s question as restated by the court yesterday:  “Is time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7?”  (Emphasis added to show revised question language.)  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy has filed an amicus curiae brief in the case.]
  • The court denied review in People v. Gonzales, but Justice Carol Corrigan recorded a vote to grant.  Record votes are usually designed to send a message about the dissenting justice’s interest in a legal issue.  The message from this vote is unclear, however, because the Second District, Division Six’s published opinion deals with three separate issues and the docket doesn’t identify which issue or issues piqued Justice Corrigan’s interest.  The opinion conditionally reversed a murder conviction because the superior court had failed to determine whether the defendant was competent to stand trial after defense counsel withdrew a statement of doubt as to defendant’s competency.  The appellate court held “neither the defendant nor his counsel may withdraw a previously expressed doubt.”  But it was the defendant who petitioned for review, presumably because the court rejected his arguments that a medical examiner’s testimony violated Sanchez and that a defense witness’s testimony was wrongly excluded as irrelevant.
  • The court abated a less-than-one-year-old death penalty appeal (People v. Urdiales) because the defendant died.  (See here.)
  • There were 13 criminal case grant-and-holds, and three criminal case grant-and-transfers.