Author: admin

The Court held no conference this week.  Accordingly, no action was taken on petitions for review and no opinions were ordered published or depublished.

The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, June 29, 2016. 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.

Review Granted

California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, S234148 – Review Granted – June 29, 2016

This case presents the following question: Is a proposed initiative measure that would impose a tax subject to the requirement of California Constitution, article XIII C, section 2 that taxes “imposed by local government” be placed on the ballot at a general election instead of a special election?

The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, held in a published decision, California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 970, that (1) Article XIII C, section 2 does not apply to the California Cannabis Coalition’s (CCC) initiative, which would adopt regulations for the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in Upland, including requiring dispensaries to pay an annual licensing and inspection fee.  The court reasoned that Article XIII C applies only to taxes imposed by a local government and is silent as to taxes imposed by initiatives.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.

The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, June 22, 2016. 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.

Review Granted

Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., S233983 – Review Granted – June 22, 2016

This case 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.)

After a bench trial in a class action against a retailer under the Song–Beverly Credit Card Act, class representatives requested that the court order an attorney fees award of one quarter of the total maximum fund created by the judgment to be payable to class counsel from the fund. The defendant agreed not to contest that request. Muller, a class member, requested the court order notice of the attorney fee motion be sent to all class members. The court denied Muller’s request, granted the attorney fee motion, and entered judgment. Muller appealed from the judgment. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held in a published decision, Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 651, that the customer who was not a class representative was not a “party of record,” and thus could not appeal.

Cushfield Maintenance West v. Superior Court (Hall), S234604 – Review Granted & Held – June 22, 2016

The court granted review and deferred further action pending disposition of Williams v. Superior Court, S227228, which raises the issues:  (1) Is the plaintiff in a representative action under the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) entitled to discovery of the names and contact information of other “aggrieved employees” at the beginning of the proceeding or is the plaintiff first required to show good cause in order to have access to such information?  (2) In ruling on such a request for employee contact information, should the trial court first determine whether the employees have a protectable privacy interest and, if so, balance that privacy interest against competing or countervailing interests, or is a protectable privacy interest assumed?  (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1; Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360.)

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.

The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, June 15, 2016. 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.

Review Granted

Rubinstein v Doe 1, S234269—Review Granted—June 15, 2016

This case presents the following questions: (1) Does the delayed discovery rule in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 apply to the accrual of a cause of action against a public entity for purposes of determining the time within which a claim under the Government Claims Act must be made? (2) Does Government Code section 905, subdivision (m), apply to childhood sexual abuse causes of action based on conduct occurring before January 1, 2009?

The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held in a published decision, Rubinstein v. Doe 1 (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1037, that: (1) a delayed discovery rule applies to determine accrual of a cause of action against a public entity, (2) former student was not required to refile certificates of merit after the trial court granted her petition for relief from claims presentation requirements; (3) certificates were not required to be filed under penalty of perjury; (4) former student should have been granted leave to amend to include supporting facts in the certificates of merit; (5) former student should have been granted leave to amend to clarify allegations against fictitiously named individual defendants; and (6) erroneous service of complaint on public entity before obtaining in camera review of certificates of merit was not a proper ground for dismissal.

Dismissal in case presenting certified question of state law

Gradillas v. Lincoln General Insurance Company, S227632—Matter Dismissed—June 15, 2016

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, the Supreme Court previously agreed to decide a question of California law certified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Supreme Court had phrased the question presented as follows: “For purposes of coverage under an automobile insurance policy, what is the proper test for determining whether an injury arises out of the ‘use’ of a vehicle?”  This week, the Supreme Court dismissed the matter after the Ninth Circuit case was dismissed following a settlement.

A passenger who was sexually assaulted on an insured party bus brought action against the insurer of the party bus company, alleging the insurer breached its duty to defend and indemnify its insured.  In a published decision, Gradillas v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2015) 792 F.3d 1050, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an order certifying the following question of California law to the Supreme Court: “When determining whether an injury arises out of the ‘use’ of a vehicle for purposes of determining coverage under an automobile insurance policy and an insurance company’s duty to defend, is the appropriate test whether the vehicle was a ‘predominating cause/substantial factor’ or whether there was a ‘minimal causal connection’ between the vehicle and the injury?”

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.

The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, June 8, 2016. 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.

Review Granted

T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., S233898—Review Granted—June 8, 2016

The Court limited review to the following issue: May the brand name manufacturer of a pharmaceutical drug that divested all ownership interest in the drug be held liable for injuries caused years later by another manufacturer’s generic version of that drug?

Minors injured in utero through their mothers’ use of generic asthma medication brought action against the former manufacturer of a brand name medication and other drug companies, physicians, and hospital, alleging negligence, concealment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court sustained the former manufacturer’s demurrer without leave to amend, and the minors appealed.

Under the rationale of Conte v. Wyeth, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 89, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held in a published decision that the minors provided sufficient additional information on appeal to demonstrate they may amend their complaint to state a claim for negligent failure to warn and negligent misrepresentation based on acts or omissions by the former manufacturer before 2001, which allegedly caused or contributed to the minors’ injuries in 2007.  The Court rejected both the former manufacturer’s invitation to follow other states’ authorities (which have held a brand-name manufacturer cannot be liable for an injury caused by a product other than its own), and the contention that Conte is no longer viable after the Supreme Court decision in O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335.  The court reversed and remanded with directions to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend the negligence and negligent misrepresentation causes of action.

Sweetwater Union School District v. Gilbane Building Company, S233526—Review Granted—June 8, 2016

This anti-SLAPP case presents the following issues: (1) Is testimony given in a criminal case by persons who are not parties in a subsequent civil action admissible in that action to oppose a special motion to strike? (2) Is such testimony subject to the conditions in Evidence Code section 1290 et seq. for receiving former testimony in evidence?

The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held in a published decision that: (1) when considering anti-SLAPP motion, trial court is permitted to consider plea forms entered by individuals who were criminally prosecuted in connection with contracts ; (2) trial court was also permitted to consider grand jury exhibits and transcripts; (3) the plaintiff school district’s complaint arose from protected activity, thereby triggering the anti-SLAPP statute; (4) the defendant contractors did not concede the illegality of conduct alleged in complaint, and thus conduct did not lose protection of the anti-SLAPP statute on that basis; (5) evidence did not conclusively establish that the conduct at issue was illegal as a matter of law; but (6) the plaintiff district demonstrated a probability of prevailing against the defendant contractors, thereby defeating their anti-SLAPP motion.

Original Proceedings

Ayers v. Commission on Judicial Performance, S233333.  The petitioner in this case is Ventura County Superior Court Judge Nancy Ayers.  She challenged a decision by the Commission on Judicial Performance to issue an advisory letter—colloquially known as a “stinger” letter—to her for keeping a service dog she was training in her courtroom.  The Supreme Court issued an alternative writ of mandate directing the Commission to withdraw the advisory letter or to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.

The Court held no conference this week because it heard oral argument in Los Angeles. Accordingly, no action was taken on petitions for review and no opinions were ordered published or depublished.

The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, May 25, 2016. 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.

Review Granted

Bianka M. v. Superior Court, S233757—Review Granted—May 25, 2016

The petitioner is a teenage girl from Honduras who entered the United States without documentation in 2013.  She was briefly detained by federal immigration authorities, then resettled in Los Angeles where she now lives with her mother.  The petitioner’s mother and biological father never married.  He resides in Honduras. The question presented is whether the trial court erred in denying the juvenile petitioner’s request for an order making findings concerning Special Immigrant Juvenile status (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J); see Code Civ. Proc., § 155) and placing her in her mother’s sole legal and physical custody.

The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three, held in a published decision, Bianka M. v. Superior Court (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 406, that (1) as a matter of first impression, abandonment, as used under the Special Immigrant Juvenile statute (SIJ), means leaving a child without provision for reasonable and necessary care or supervision;(2) as a matter of first impression, SIJ findings are to be made after or in connection with a judicial custody determination after a full and fair evidentiary hearing; (3) as a matter of first impression, a parentage action is not a bona fide custody proceeding, as required for the trial court to make SIJ findings; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the father’s joinder; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering due process in making joinder decision; (6) the fact that trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the child custody proceeding did not indicate that court necessarily had authority to issue a custody order; and (7) the juvenile was required to provide her father with notice of the specific SIJ findings she sought.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.