The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on September 13, 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

Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water District, S243360–Review Granted–September 13, 2017

In a published opinion, Plantier v. Raona Municipal Water District (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 856, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held that the plaintiffs’ class action challenging the water district’s method of calculating wastewater service fees is not barred by their failure to exhaust the administrative remedies set forth under article XIII D of the California Constitution.

This case presents the following issue: Were ratepayers seeking to challenge the water district’s method of calculating wastewater service fees required to exhaust administrative remedies by participating in the public hearing required by California Constitution, Article XIII D, section 6?

City and County of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California, S242835– Review Granted– September 13, 2017

In a published opinion, City and County of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1107, the Court of Appeal, First District, Division One, held that the California Constitution’s “home-rule provision” did not authorize the city to compel state universities to collect and remit city taxes from users of university parking lots.

This case presents the following issue: Can a charter city require state universities that operate paid parking lots within the city to comply with an ordinance that requires parking lot operators to collect from their customers and remit to the city a tax on the fee charged for a parking space?

Apigee v. Superior Court (Beck), S242890–Review Granted and Held– September 13, 2017

The Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, summarily denied a petition for writ of mandate from a superior court order involving whether state courts have jurisdiction over federal securities act claims (Case No. A151583).

The Supreme Court granted review, deferring further action pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, cert. granted Jun. 27, 2017, __ U.S. __ [137 S.Ct. 2325, __ L.Ed. ___], which raises the question whether state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over covered class actions that allege claims only under the Securities Act of 1933.

Hart v. Darwish, S243062– Review Granted and Held– September 13, 2017

In a published opinion, Hart v. Darwish (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 218, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two, held that (1) the trial court did not violate the hearsay rule in taking judicial notice of a prior court’s denial of a motion and its basis for that ruling, stating that the hearsay rule does not bar judicial notice of a state court’s ruling or its stated basis for that ruling, and (2) the interim adverse judgment rule applies to a prior court’s denial on the merits of a motion for judgment at the close of the prior plaintiff’s evidence.

The Supreme Court granted review, deferring further action pending the finality of its August 10, 2017, decision in  Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, Case No.  S228277, which presents the following issues:  (1) Does the denial of former employees’ motion for summary judgment in an action for misappropriation of trade secrets conclusively establish that their former employer had probable cause to bring the action and thus preclude the employees’ subsequent action for malicious prosecution, even if the trial court in the prior action later found that it had been brought in bad faith? (2) Is the former employees’ malicious prosecution action against the employer’s former attorneys barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 304.6?

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.