February 18, 2012

Summary of February 15, 2012 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 Wednesday, February 15, 2012. 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

Biancalana v. T.D. Service, S198562 – Review Granted—February 15, 2012

The question presented is whether a trustee, who made an error in the processing and announcement of a beneficiary’s “credit bid” during foreclosure proceedings on a deed of trust, has the discretionary authority to set aside the foreclosure sale due to his error if he has yet to issue a trustee’s deed to the highest bidder. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal, Sixth District, reversed the trial court’s judgment granting the trustee’s summary judgment motion because there was no procedural irregularity in the foreclosure sale that would invalidate it. The court found the error was wholly under the trustee’s control and arose solely from his negligence.

In re Cipro Cases I & II, S198616—Review Granted—February 15, 2012

The question presented is whether a suit may be brought under the Cartwright Antitrust Act to challenge “reverse exclusionary payments” made by pharmaceutical manufacturers to settle patent litigation with generic drug producers and prolong the life of the patents in question. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held in a published opinion that a settlement to enforce a patent does not violate the Cartwright Act if it restrains competition only within the scope of the patent.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

Adoption of Liam D., S198391—Review Denied [Kennard, J. and Liu, J. voting for review]—February 15, 2012

The question presented was whether in appealing an order terminating parental rights the time to appeal begins to run from the date of the oral announcement of the ruling or from the date of the minute order. The Court of Appeal, Fifth District, held the time to appeal begins to run on the date of the oral announcement and granted a motion to dismiss the appeal due to untimely filing.

City of Murrietta v. Superior Court (Hooks), S199273—Review Denied [Kennard, J. voting for review]—February 15, 2012

The question presented was whether a dangerous condition exists where trees and shrubs arguably obstructed the view of a motorist and caused the motorist to run a red light and broadside another vehicle. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, held that the City of Murrietta cannot be held liable because a dangerous condition of its property did not lead to plaintiff’s injuries.

Rollow v. California Department of Justice, S199295—Review Denied [Werdegar, J. voting for review]—February 15, 2012

The question presented was whether the data in the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System is exempt from disclosure under the Information Practices Act of 1977. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, held that it is.

Depublished

None.

Leave a Reply