The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on November 1, 2017. 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

Ramirez v. City of Gardena, S244549– Review Granted– November 1, 2017

The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, held in a published opinion, Ramirez v. City of Gardena (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 811, that: (1) Vehicle Code section 17004.7(b)(2), which provides governmental immunity from personal injury or wrongful death claims resulting from law enforcement vehicular pursuit when the governmental entity has adopted and implemented an appropriate vehicle pursuit policy, does not require, as a prerequisite to immunity, proof of compliance or written certification of compliance by every single officer and (2)  the city’s vehicular pursuit policy was sufficient to trigger immunity under Vehicle Code section 17004.7(b)(2).

The Supreme Court limited review to the following issue:  Is the immunity provided by Vehicle Code section 17004.7 available to a public agency only if all peace officers of the agency certify in writing that they have received, read, and understand the agency’s vehicle pursuit policy?

Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, S244148– Review Granted and Held– November 1, 2017

The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, held in a published opinion, Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 851, that a surgeon’s retaliation claim against a hospital did not arise from statements made during peer review proceedings, but rather was based on an alleged retaliatory motive for undertaking  peer review, and thus did not arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.

The Supreme Court granted review and deferred further action pending its decision of a related issue in Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., S239686, namely:  In deciding whether an employee’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation arise from protected activity for purposes of a special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), what is the relevance of an allegation that the employer acted with a discriminatory or retaliatory motive?

Esquith v. Los Angeles Unified School District, S244026 – Review Granted and Held –  November 1, 2017

In an unpublished decision, Esquith v. Los Angeles Unified School District (Cal.Ct.App., July 20, 2017, No. B276432) 2017 WL 3083474, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, held a teacher’s retaliation claim against a school district did not arise from a protected employment investigation, but rather that the investigation itself was retaliatory and discriminatory, and thus the investigation was not protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.

As in Bonni, above, the Supreme Court granted review and deferred further action pending its decision in Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., S239686, which presents the following question:  In deciding whether an employee’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation arise from protected activity for purposes of a special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), what is the relevance of an allegation that the employer acted with a discriminatory or retaliatory motive?

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

In re A.W., S244430– Review Denied [Cuėllar, J., voted to grant review]– November 1, 2017

In an unpublished decision, In re A.W. (Cal.Ct.App., Aug. 11, 2017, No. E067059) 2017 WL 3446591, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, affirmed the juvenile court’s ruling: (a) that the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C.  §  1901 et seq.) does not apply; and (b) upholding the termination of parental rights.  The Court of Appeal held that: (1) the father was not an enrolled member of a Native American Tribe on the date of the hearing; (2) the Indian Child Welfare Act does not require a child welfare agency to facilitate a tribe’s internal membership proceedings; and (3) the parents did not carry their burden to establish the juvenile court erred when it found their child was not an Indian Child and then terminated their parental rights.

Depublished

None.