If not for the anti-SLAPP statute, Proposition 47, and death penalty appeals, would the Supreme Court have anything to do?  That’s definitely hyperbole, but, then again, the court’s Wednesday conference didn’t dispel the perception, at least as to anti-SLAPP cases, and despite hopes the Chief Justice voiced almost three years ago.  The court also involved itself in two whistleblower matters; no, definitely not that one.  Conference actions of note included:

  • The court agreed to decide yet another anti-SLAPP case, Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System.  Bonni was originally a grant-and-hold for Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., but, now that Wilson has been decided, and the court disapproved Bonni on one point (Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 892), the court opted not simply to transfer the case back to the Court of Appeal for a reappraisal, but instead to unhold the case and order briefing.  (Possibly following a blog’s advice, the Bonni defendant moved the Supreme Court to set a briefing schedule and the court granted the motion.  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy submitted an amicus curiae letter requesting a briefing schedule in the case.])  The Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal’s published opinion in Bonni reversed the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion in a physician’s whistleblower case that claims retaliation involving a hospital peer review process.  The appellate court said, “Discrimination and retaliation claims are rarely, if ever, good candidates for the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion.”
  • In other anti-SLAPP grant-and-hold cases:  (a) the court transferred Daniel v. Wayans — a case on hold, first, for Park (see here), and, later, for Wilson (here) — to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Wilson and FilmOn.com (see here), but not Park; (b) the court dismissed review in Duchan v. Los Angeles Unified School District, a case on hold for Wilson; (c) because of a settlement, the court dismissed review in Esquith v. Los Angeles Unified School District, a case on hold for Wilson; (d) in Melamed v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, a case that had been on hold for Wilson (and, even earlier, had been transferred for reconsideration in light of Park), the court said the case is now on hold for Bonni (see above).  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy represented an amicus curiae in the Court of Appeal and also filed an August amicus curiae letter in the Supreme Court requesting a briefing schedule in the case.]; (e) Rall v. Tribune 365 was transferred to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Wilson, the case for which it had been on hold; (f) the court dismissed review in San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego State University Research Foundation, a case on hold for Wilson; (g) the court dismissed review in Symmonds v. Mahoney, a case on hold for Wilson.
  • It might not be the most prominent whistleblower matter out there right now, or even the only one the court dealt with yesterday (see Bonni, above), but the court granted-and-transferred in Whitehall v. Superior Court, after the Fourth District, Division Two, summarily denied a writ petition.  Based on a prior Court of Appeal opinion in the underlying case — an anti-SLAPP appeal in which the Supreme Court denied a depublication request — it appears that the petitioner is suing for loss of her social worker job after she told a juvenile court she had submitted falsified information at her superiors’ direction.  (Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 352.)  According to the grant-and-transfer order, the writ petition involves the petitioner/plantiff’s so far unsuccessful effort to obtain a “limited . . . disclosure of . . . juvenile records” relevant to her whistleblower claim.
  • The court transferred back to various Courts of Appeal 31 criminal case grant-and-holds.  Most, if not all, were on hold for the court’s August decision in In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, which struck a probation condition requiring submission of a burglary defendant’s electronic devices to warrantless searches.  In one of the transferred cases — People v. Trujillo — the court had unheld the matter and ordered briefing (see Bonni, above).  The briefing was completed last December, but the court yesterday apparently determined it wasn’t necessary, directing the Court of Appeal to reconsider the case in light of Ricardo P.
  • There were three criminal case grant-and-holds and one criminal grant-and-transfer.