July 29, 2010

Summary of July 28, 2010 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, July 28, 2010. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted (not including grant-and-transfers), (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal, or (4) the Court has denied a Court of Appeal’s publication request.

Review Granted

None.

Review Denied (with dissenting justice)

All One God Faith v. Organic & Sustainable Industry Standards, S182848—Review Denied [Corrigan, J. voting for review]—July 28, 2010
The issues presented were (a) whether a cosmetics trade association is a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services so as to fall within Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c)’s exception to the anti-SLAPP statute; and (b) whether the trial court erred by denying the trade association’s anti-SLAPP motion challenging a cosmetics manufacturer’s action seeking to enjoin the certification as “organic” any products that do not meet the standards of the U.S.D.A.’s National Organic Program.

In a published opinion, All One God Faith, Inc. v. Organic and Sustainable Industry Standards, Inc. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1186, the Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five, held that: (1) the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because the cosmetic manufacturer’s cause of action did not arise out of speech in connection with public issue; (2) the manufacturer’s cause of action did not arise out of protected activity in connection with an issue of public interest; and (3) as a matter of first impression, the trade association was not within the anti-SLAPP statute’s exception for persons primarily engaged in selling or leasing goods or services.

S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, S183745—Review Denied [Kennard, J. voting for review]—July 28, 2010
In an action arising from the alleged molestation of a student by a teacher, the issues presented were (a) whether the student’s cause of action for negligent supervision accrued the last day of the student’s school year, rather than when a parent first learns of the molestation; and (b) whether the six-month notice of claim period for filing a claim against a government entity, rather than the general statute of limitations for childhood sexual molestation, applies to a negligent supervision claim against a school district.

In a published opinion, S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 712, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, held that: (1) a cause of action against a school district for negligent supervision of a teacher who allegedly molested a student accrued, and the six-month notice of claim period began to run, on the last day of the plaintiff student’s school year, and (2) the six-month period for filing a claim against a government entity, rather than the general statute of limitations for childhood sexual molestation, applies to a negligent supervision claim against a school district.

Depublished

None.

Court of Appeal Publication Request Denied

None.

Leave a Reply