March 28, 2013

Summary of March 27, 2013 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, March 27, 2013. 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.

This week we note that Justice Ming Chin has cast a solo vote dissenting from the denial of review. This is a rare event. Our records indicate he has cast a solo vote dissenting from the denial of review in a civil case on only one other occasion in more than five years (though he has cast such dissenting votes with his colleagues on seven other occasions). This record stands in stark contrast to that of Justice Joyce Kennard, who quite frequently casts solo votes dissenting from the Court’s orders denying review.

Review Granted

Apple v. Superior Court (Herr), S209295—Review Granted and Held—March 27, 2013

The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, summarily denied a petition for writ of mandate and request for stay. The Supreme Court granted review and deferred further action pending further order of the Court or consideration and disposition of a related issue in Loeffler v. Target Corporation, S173972: Does the California Constitution (article XIII, section 32) or Revenue and Taxation Code (section 6932) bar a lawsuit brought by a consumer against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, section 1750 et seq.) alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on nontaxable transactions?

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

Estate of Wilson, S208135—Review Denied [Chin, J. is of the opinion review should be granted.]—March 27, 2013

The question presented was whether a marriage license constitutes a signed writing that terminates a domestic partnership agreement. In a published opinion, Estate of Wilson (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1284, the Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, held marriage licenses do not automatically invalidate domestic partnership agreements that are enforceable under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (Fam. Code, §§ 1600-1617) and made after the enactment of statutes that provide domestic partners essentially the same California state property rights as spouses.



Leave a Reply