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, December 16, 2015. 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

Cardenas v. Fanaian, S230533,—Review Granted—December 16, 2015

This case presents the following issue: Does Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee for reporting any alleged violation of law or only for reporting alleged violations that involve the conduct of the employer’s business activities?

The Court of Appeal, Fifth District, in a published decision, Cardenas v. Fanaian (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1167, affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who reports a crime to law enforcement—regardless of whether the crime is related to the employer’s business activities—if the employee has reasonable belief that a crime has occurred.

J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School District, S230510—Review Granted—December 16, 2015

This case includes the following issue: Must a claimant under the Government Claims Act file a petition for relief from Government Code section 945.4’s claim requirement, as set forth in Government Code section 946.6, if he has submitted a timely application for leave to present a late claim under Government Code section 911.6, subdivision (b)(2), and was a minor at all relevant times?

The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s ruling and held in a published decision, J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School District (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1019, that under the Government Claims Act, a claimant must satisfy Government Code section 946.6’s requirements for presenting a claim, even if the claimant submitted a timely application for leave to present a late claim. The Court of Appeal also held that failure to give written notice of a denial of an application to present a late claim does not toll the six-month limitation period.

Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, S229728 – Review Granted—December 16, 2015

This case presents the following issue: Does the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, authorize a court to strike a cause of action in which the plaintiff challenges only the validity of an action taken by a public entity in an “official proceeding authorized by law” but does not seek relief against any participant in that proceeding based on his or her protected communications?

The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two, reversed the trial court and held in a published decision, Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1258, that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike.

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Los Angeles Waterkeeper), S230192, — Review Granted and Held—December 16, 2015

The Supreme Court granted review and deferred further action pending disposition of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU), S226645, which raises the following issue: Are invoices for legal services sent to the County of Los Angeles by outside counsel within the scope of the attorney-client privilege and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, even with all references to attorney opinions, advice, and similar information redacted?

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.