May 3, 2017

Summary of April 26, 2017 conference report for civil cases

The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on April 26, 2017. 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.

Review Granted

Dow Agrosciences v. Superior Court (Center for Environmental Health), S241133 – Review Granted and Transferred – April 26, 2017

Dow Agrosciences (DAS) is an out-of-state company that manufactures and sells agricultural products including those with the active ingredient 1,3-Dichloroproprene, a designated “restricted material” under Proposition 65.   It may be applied only by “certified applicators” according to specific, single-use permits issued by a county Agricultural Commissioner.  Plaintiff Center for Environmental Health (CEH) sued DAS in Alameda County Superior Court for violations of Proposition 65 seeking statutory penalties and injunctive relief.  CEH’s claims are limited to Proposition 65 violations in and around the town of Shafter in Kern County.  No violations are alleged to have occurred (or to be occurring) in Alameda County.

DAS filed a writ petition in the First District Court of Appeal, Dow Agrosciences LLC v. The Superior Court of Alameda County, Case No. A150854.  It evidently challenged CEH’s choice of venue and sought a stay of all trial court proceedings, including DAS’s discovery responses, DAS’s response to the complaint, case management conference statement, and the case management conference.  The Court of Appeal issued an order summarily denying the writ petition.

The Supreme Court granted the petition for review and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, with directions to vacate its order denying the petition for writ of mandate and to issue an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.

Guardianship of G. (Denis), S240470 – Review Granted and Transferred – April 26, 2017

In D.G. et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. B279348, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, summarily denied a petition for writ of mandate directing the Probate Court to enter Special Immigrant Juvenile findings.

The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its order denying the petition for writ of mandate and to issue an order directing respondent superior court to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.  The Court instructed the trial court to consider inviting briefing from the Attorney General.  The Supreme Court directed that the superior court should pay special attention to Code of Civil Procedure section 155’s requirement that the superior court’s role in the Special Immigrant Juvenile process is to make factual findings under subdivision (b) without reference to the “asserted, purported, or perceived motivation of the child seeking classification as a special immigrant juvenile.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 155, subd. (b)(2).) The Court also directed the superior court to pay special attention to California’s statutory definitions of neglect and abandonment. (Fam. Code, §§ 3402, subd. (a), 7822, subd. (a); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b)(1), (g).)

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.

Leave a Reply