There were no straight grants at yesterday’s Supreme Court Wednesday conference, but there were some actions of note, including:

  • Supreme Court approves two pardons, after 11-month wait.
  • The court denied review in Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC v. Superior Court, but it depublished the opinion of the Second District, Division Six, Court of Appeal.  The case was originally a grant-and-hold that was remanded for reconsideration in light of last year’s decisions in Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.  The first Gulf Offshore appellate opinion held California wage laws did not apply to an action brought by non-California residents and former crew members of a vessel providing maintenance services to oil platforms located in the Pacific Ocean off the California coast.  The now depublished, post-Ward/Oman opinion held that California wage laws did apply.  It also concluded that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and “general maritime law” did not preempt the wage laws in the case.
  • The court ordered supplemental briefing in Shalabi v. City of Fontana, less than two weeks after sending out its oral argument letter.  In August 2019, the court granted review and limited the issue to:  “Code of Civil Procedure section 12 provides:  ‘The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day, and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded.’  In cases where the statute of limitations is tolled, is the first day after tolling ends included or excluded in calculating whether an action is timely filed?”  The court now wants the parties to discuss “whether this court’s decision in Ganahl v. Soher (1884) 2 Cal.Unrep. 415, retains precedential authority in light of this court’s subsequent decision in Ganahl v. Soher (1885) 68 Cal. 95.”  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy has filed an amicus brief in the case.]
  • The court will not decide an arbitration case where, in December, it granted review and depublished the Court of Appeal’s opinion.  In Conyer v. Hula Media Services, LLC, the court dismissed review as moot because the parties settled the case.  After granting review, the court limited the issues to:  “Did the Court of Appeal err by severing unconscionable terms from the arbitration agreement and ordering the agreement enforced?  Did it err by doing so without determining whether the invalid provisions were included in the agreement in bad faith?  (See Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 124-125, fn. 13.)”
  • The court transferred to the superior court under Proposition 66 three death row inmates’ habeas corpus petitions.  (See here and here.)
  • There were 14 criminal case grant-and-holds:  five more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here); two more holding for Lewis and People v. Strong (see here); one more holding for Lewis and People v. Lopez (see here) (that’s a total of 218 Lewis grant-and-holds); one more holding for Lopez; two more holding for People v. Delgadillo (see here); one more holding for People v. Garcia and People v. Valencia (see here), which will be argued next month; one more holding for People v. Tirado (see here); and one more holding for People v. Vivar (see here), which was argued in February (oral argument video here).
  • The court dismissed review in a grant-and-hold case that was waiting for the December decision in People v. Moses.