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, January 13, 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.

Review Granted

County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety, S230213—Review Granted—January 13, 2016

The Court granted review limited to the question whether the authority granted to a jailer under Penal Code section 1269b, “to set the time and place for the appearance of the arrested person before the appropriate court and give notice thereof” makes the appearance in that court on that date “lawfully required” for purposes of forfeiting bail under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (a)(4).

The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, held in a published opinion, County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety Inc. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 535, that section 1269b does not address forfeiture of bail, which is governed by section 1305. The court also stated that the section 1269b does not state that the defendant is lawfully required to appear in court on the date appearing on the bond or he or she risks forfeiture of the bond. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision setting aside summary judgement, vacating forfeiture, and exonerating bail.

Persolve v. Szanto, S231036—Review Granted and Held—January 13, 2016

The Court granted review and deferred briefing pending consideration and disposition of John v. Superior Court, S222726, which raises the following issue: Must a defendant who has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a prefiling order (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (a)) obtain leave of the presiding judge or justice before filing an appeal from an adverse judgment? (Note that John is scheduled for argument February 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., in Sacramento.)

Young’s Market Company v. Superior Court (San Diego Unified School District), S230808,—Review Granted and Held —January 13, 2016

The Court granted review and deferred briefing pending consideration and disposition of related issues in Property Reserve v. Superior Court, S217738, which raises the following issues: (1) Do the geological testing activities proposed by the Department of Water Resources constitute a taking? (2) Do the environmental testing activities set forth in the February 22, 2011, entry order constitute a taking? (3) If so, do the precondemnation entry statutes (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1245.010-1245.060) provide a constitutionally valid eminent domain proceeding for the taking?

The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s ruling and held in a published opinion, Young’s Market Company v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 356, that the Superior Court’s order complied with eminent domain and did not violate the entry statutes or the California Constitution.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

M.(S.) v. Los Angeles Unified School District, S230064 – Depublished – January 13, 2016

This was an action against a school district for negligent supervision of a teacher who sexually abused a student. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five, reversed the trial court and held in a published opinion, S.M. v. Los Angeles United School District (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 543, that evidence of the plaintiff’s sexual history was inadmissible, and related modified jury instructions were unfairly prejudicial to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court denied review but granted several requests for depublication, directing the Reporter of Decisions not to publish the Court of Appeal’s opinion. (Full disclosure: Horvitz & Levy LLP was appellate counsel for the school district in this matter.)