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, July 27, 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

Crossroads Investors v. Federal National Mortgage Association, S234737 – Review Granted and Held – July 27, 2016

The Court ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Baral v. Schnitt, S225090, which presents the following issue:  Does a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute — Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 — authorize a trial court to excise allegations of activity protected under the statute when the cause of action also includes meritorious allegations based on activity that is not protected under the statute?

The Third District Court of Appeal held in a published decision, Crossroads Investors, L.P. v. Federal National Mortgage Association (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 529, that: (1) Fannie Mae’s alleged failure to respond to a borrower’s verbal requests for an accounting was not protected activity under anti-SLAPP statute; and (2) Fannie Mae’s alleged failure to provide the borrower with the scheduled date of a foreclosure sale, after promising to provide such notice, was not protected litigation activity.

Transferred

Hamilton v. Yates, S226450 – Transferred after Grant of Review – July 27, 2016

This case presents the following issues: (1) Did the trial court err in concluding that there was no means of affording the indigent prisoner plaintiff access to the courts to pursue his civil action? (2) Did the trial court err by dismissing the action based on the plaintiff’s failure to appear in such circumstances?

The Fifth District Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision, Hamilton v. Yates (May 4, 2015, F069608) 2015 WL 2095707, that: (1) the prisoner plaintiff failed to provide the court with a reasonable option for conducting the jury trial; and (2) the trial court was correct in granting the motion to dismiss the action.

After granting review and after briefing was complete, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the Attorney General’s concession that the trial court improvidently dismissed plaintiff’s complaint because the court could have allowed him to appear for trial by telephone.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.