Supreme Court will decide another anti-SLAPP issue, this time in an eviction protest case

Actions of note at the Supreme Court’s Wednesday conference included:

• The court granted review in Geiser v. Kuhns, and it limited the issue to:  “How should it be determined what public issue or issue of public interest is implicated by speech within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4)) and the first step of the two-part test articulated in FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, 149-150, and should deference be granted to a defendant’s framing of the public interest issue at this step?”  The Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal, in a divided unpublished opinion, held the anti-SLAPP statute didn’t apply to a petition seeking a restraining order against defendants who were demonstrating at the plaintiff’s home and office against plaintiff’s company’s eviction of two defendants from their home.  Even though acknowledging that “defendants’ conduct does bear certain hallmarks of classic SLAPP conduct,” the appellate court concluded “defendants’ challenged activity concerned a purely private issue and did not concern or further the public discourse on a public issue or an issue of public interest.”  That court so ruled once before (see here); this second opinion comes after a remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of the FilmOn decision.  Anti-SLAPP cases, including those applying the FilmOn opinion, are a staple of the Supreme Court’s docket.  (See here and here.)
• In People v. Williams, the court granted review and limited the issue to:  “Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults convicted and sentenced for serious sex crimes under the One Strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61) from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults convicted of first degree murder are entitled to such consideration?”  (Links added.)  The published part of an opinion by the Fourth District, Division One — disagreeing with a First District, Division Four decision (People v. Edwards (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 183) — found no equal protection violation.  The Supreme Court denied review in the First District case.
• The court granted-and-held in Weimer v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, deferring action pending a decision in Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank (see here).  In Sheen, the court is expected to decide whether a mortgage servicer owes a borrower a duty of care to refrain from making material misrepresentations about the status of a foreclosure sale following the borrower’s submission of, and the servicer’s agreement to review, an application to modify a mortgage loan.  The Third District’s partially published Weimer opinion held the plaintiff had properly stated a cause of action against two defendants for negligence in a loan modification process.
• The court invited the Attorney General to file an amicus curiae brief in Molina v. Superior Court, in which the court granted review a year ago to decide if the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the petitioner could not seek relief by petition for writ of mandate from a concededly invalid conviction (see People v. Rodriguez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1125) under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a).  The Orange County District Attorney is representing the People in the Supreme Court.  The petitioner/defendant opted not to file a reply brief.
• The court denied review in Sepah v. County of Los Angeles, but Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Leondra Kruger recorded votes to grant.  In an unpublished opinion, the Second District, Division Five, reversed a summary adjudication ruling against the plaintiff’s defamation claim, but affirmed adverse jury and court verdicts and summary adjudication rulings on whistle blower and gender discrimination claims.  As the appellate court said, there were “a host of arguments for reversal.”  It is thus not clear what issue or issues prompted Justice Cuéllar and Kruger’s dissenting votes.  (See here.)
• The court denied review in Los Angeles Leadership Academy, Inc. v. Prang, but Justice Joshua Groban recorded a vote to grant.  The Second District, Division Eight, published opinion held a nonprofit charter school was not impliedly exempt from property taxes and special exemptions, saying the school’s contentions “are quintessentially policy arguments, and should be directed to the Legislature.”
• The court retained and issued an order to show cause in a pre-Proposition 66 capital habeas corpus proceeding (see here), In re Curl.  The superior court will conduct a hearing regarding whether relief is warranted because “trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the penalty phase for failing to investigate and present evidence of petitioner’s juvenile institutional history and prison institutional history.”
• In In re Melson, after the Second District, Division One, summarily denied a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court directed the appellate court to issue an order to show cause, returnable in superior court, to decide if the petitioner “received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when counsel failed to adequately argue for the exclusion of witness Pedro Sabino’s photo lineup identification of petitioner and failed to consult or present an eyewitness identification expert.”
• There were seven criminal case grant-and-holds:  three more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here); one more holding for O.G. v. Superior Court (see here); one more holding for People v. Tirado (see here); one more holding for People v. Lemcke (originally People v. Rudd) (see here); and one holding for People v. Williams, in which the court granted review yesterday (see above).
• The court granted-and-transferred in one case, directing reconsideration in light of the court’s decision last month in People v. Frahs.