The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on May 24, 2017. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Segovia v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, S241233 – Review Granted and Held – May 24, 2017
In this case, the Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three’s dismissal of an appeal of a wage and hour class action settlement. In an unpublished opinion, Segovia v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Mar. 2, 2017, B266570), the Court of Appeal held the appellant lacked standing to appeal because, although he was a class member, he did not intervene in the litigation. The Supreme Court has deferred further action pending its decision in Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 651, review granted June 22, 2016, S233983, which presents the following question: “Must an unnamed class member intervene in the litigation in order to have standing to appeal? (See Eggert v. Pac. States S. & L. Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 199.)”
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
Wilson v. County of Napa, S241208 – Review Denied [Chin and Corrigan, J, voting for review] – May 24, 2017
The questions presented in this case were: (1) does the “text” of a ballot measure within the meaning of the Elections Code mean only the actual words of the measure and any documents it expressly incorporates, or does “text” also include every cross-referenced provision that arguably creates a “new legal obligation” or is implicitly “enacted”?, and (2) does an initiative petition substantially comply with the Elections Code requirement to attach the “full text of the proposed ordinance” where it accurately sets forth every word of the proposed ordinance but not the text of existing guidelines it cross-references?
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three, held in a published opinion Wilson v. County of Napa (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 178, that (1) the proposed measure did not simply cross-reference another provision of law but would enact those cross-referenced provisions as binding conditions, and (2) that the proposed initiative did not comply with the full text requirement because of the measure’s omission of provisions incorporated by reference.