October 1, 2010
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, September 29, 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.
American Nurses Association v. O’Connell, S184583—Review Granted—September 29, 2010
The issue is whether a legal advisory authorizing school employees other than nurses to administer insulin to students is invalid under the Nursing Practice Act. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held (in an opinion authored by Chief Justice nominee Tani Cantil-Sakauye): (1) Nursing Practice Act affirmatively restricts unlicensed persons from performing functions of a licensed nurse; (2) injection of insulin into diabetic students is a function of a licensed nurse; (3) school personnel generally are not “friends or members of the family,” authorized to perform nursing services; (4) shortage of school nurses was not an “emergency” authorizing unlicensed persons to perform nursing services; (5) exception for “carrying out medical orders prescribed by a licensed physician” does not allow unlicensed school personnel to inject insulin; (6) statute providing that designated school personnel may assist pupils who need medication does not allow unlicensed personnel to administer medication; (7) statute providing that designated school personnel may assist pupils who need medication does not allow unlicensed personnel to administer insulin injections pursuant to a Rehabilitation Act plan or individualized education program (IEP); (8) and California’s prohibition against provision of nursing services by unlicensed personnel is not preempted.
Ralphs Grocery v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, S185544—Review Granted—September 29, 2010
The issues presented for review are whether an entrance area in front of a store is a public or private forum, whether the Moscone Act and Labor Code section 1138.1 are unconstitutional, and whether a preliminary injunction should have been granted to the store.
The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held that: (1) entrance area and apron in front of grocery store was a private forum; (2) federal and state constitutions did not prevent employer from limiting speech in front of grocery store; (3) Moscone Act violated First and Fourteenth Amendments as applied to employer; (4) Moscone Act must be read to allow speech about labor disputes only to extent that speech related to other issues is allowed; (5) statute adding requirements for injunctions against labor protesters violated First and Fourteenth Amendments; (6) proper remedy was to invalidate statute adding requirements for injunctions against labor protesters; and (7) loss of business from picketing constituted irreparable harm requiring injunction.
Carson v. Michael’s Stores, Inc., S185496—Review Granted & Held—September 29, 2010
The issue presented for review is whether a retailer violates the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, which prohibits a retailer from recording a customer’s “personal identification information” when the customer uses a credit card in a transaction, by recording a customer’s zip code for the purpose of later using it and the customer’s name to obtain the customer’s address through a reverse search database, the same issue that is before the court in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, S178241.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
In re G.G., S185123—Opinion Depublished—September 29, 2010
The issue is whether, in a juvenile court proceeding, a father can be required to undergo counseling when there is no finding that the father made racist and sexist remarks in the presence of his children. The Court of Appeal held that a trial court could require individual counseling to address a father’s repeated angry use of racial, ethnic and gender epithets, even if there was no evidence the father made such remarks in front of the children.
Milan v. City of Holtville, S184934—Opinion Depublished—September 29, 2010
The issue is whether city is liable for failing to accommodate employee’s disability when employee did not initiate any discussion of accommodations as required under Government Code section 12940. The Court of Appeal held that the employee failed to meet her statutory obligation to initiate discussions with city regarding a reasonable accommodation, and therefore, city is not liable.
Court of Appeal Publication Request Denied