At its Wednesday conference, besides leaving unchanged the precedential effect of a Court of Appeal opinion pending review, the Supreme Court agreed to review four cases.  Those grants, and other notable actions, are:

  • Although the losing plaintiff didn’t ask for it, the Supreme Court granted review on its own motion — something it rarely does — in Gund v. County of Trinity.  The case first made its way onto the court’s docket when a non-party pro per filed a request to depublish the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion.  The Supreme Court limited the issue to this:  “Were plaintiffs engaged in active law enforcement and limited to workers’ compensation for their injuries (Lab. Code, § 3366) when a deputy sheriff asked them to check on a neighbor who made a 911 call and the officer allegedly misrepresented the potential danger of the situation?”
  • The court granted review in Abbott Laboratories v. Superior Court, where the Fourth District, Division One, held in a 2-1 published opinion that one county’s district attorney does not have the authority under the state Unfair Competition Law “to seek and recover restitution and civil penalty relief for violations occurring outside the jurisdiction of the county in which he was elected.”  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Court of Appeal.]
  • The court granted review in Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. California Department of Public Health.  The published opinion by the First District, Division One, held that a hospital was barred by the statute of limitations from challenging a fine imposed on it for not having appropriate surgical sponge-count policies.
  • The court agreed to hear People v. Long.  The 77-page unpublished opinion by the Fourth District, Division Two, reversed habeas corpus relief for a defendant convicted of second degree murder.  After the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause in 2015, the superior court granted the habeas petition on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, but rejected the petitioner’s claim of actual innocence.
  • In People v. Aledamat, the unusual case where a pro tem justice was needed to cast the deciding vote to grant review, the court expanded the issues involved to include, “Could the jury, in this case, have concluded that defendant used an inherently deadly weapon in committing the assault without also concluding that defendant used a weapon in a manner that presents a risk of death or great bodily injury?”
  • Justice Goodwin Liu recorded a vote to grant review, while the court denied review, in People v. Hurth.  The Second District, Division Four, there affirmed in an unpublished opinion the denial of a petition under Proposition 36 — the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 — for the recall of a 25-years-to-life sentence for second degree burglary, receiving stolen property, and having suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions.
  • The court issued a grant-and-hold order in one criminal case.
  • The court dismissed review in one grant-and-hold criminal case.