Summary of October 28, 2015 conference report for civil cases

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, October 28, 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

People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, S229446—Review Granted; Issues Limited—October 28, 2015

This case presents the following issues: (1) Should the good cause standard under Penal Code section 1305.4 for extension of the period to exonerate bail require a demonstration of a reasonable likelihood of success of returning a fugitive? (2) When a court finds there has been a diligent investigation to locate a fugitive, does the burden under Penal Code section 1305.4 shift to the People to prove there is not a reasonable likelihood of returning the fugitive? (3) Does an extension of the period to exonerate bail under Penal Code section 1305.4 commence on the date on which the initial 180-day period expires or on the date on which the trial court grants the extension?

The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five, affirmed an order denying the defendant’s second motion to extend the appearance period under Penal Code section 1304 and held in a published decision, People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 440, that the defendant did not meet its burden under section 1305.4, which requires that a surety show “good cause” to receive an extension. The court also concluded that the tolling provision of section 1305, subdivision (h), did not apply.

People v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., S229271—Review Granted and Held—October 28, 2015

The Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to extend the period to exonerate a bail bond. The Supreme Court granted review and ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in People v. Financial Casualty & Surety Co., S229446. (See above for a description of the questions presented in the lead case.)

The Third District Court of Appeal held in a published decision, People v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., Inc., (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 293, that because defendant knew, at the time of the hearing on the motion to extend, of facts supporting a motion to reconsider, the motion to reconsider contained no new or different facts and the trial court therefore properly denied the motion on that basis.

In re I.C., S229276—Review Granted—October 28, 2015

This juvenile dependency proceeding presents the following issues: (1) Did the juvenile court err by failing to determine whether the truthfulness of the minor as a hearsay declarant was “so clear from the surrounding circumstances that the test of cross-examination would be of marginal utility” as required by In re Lucero L. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1227? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err by affirming the trial court’s jurisdictional finding without reviewing the entire record for substantial evidence of the minor’s clear truthfulness?

The Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, held in a published decision, In re I.C. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 304, that the plaintiff met its “substantial evidence” burden (Evid. Code § 411) to support the juvenile court’s finding under Welfare Code section 361, subdivision (c)(4), that the minor’s safety required separation from the defendant.

Universal Protection Service v. Superior Court (Parnow), S229442—Review Granted and Held—October 28, 2015

The Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The Supreme Court granted review and ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., S220812, which presents the following issue: Does the trial court or the arbitrator decide whether an arbitration agreement provides for class arbitration if the agreement itself is silent on the issue?

The Third District Court of Appeal held in a published decision, Universal Protection Service, LP v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 697, that by agreeing to conduct their arbitration under the American Arbitration Association’s rules, the parties are bound by the arbitrator’s decision of the disputed issue.

Flannigan v. Onuldo, S229113—Review Granted and Held—October 28, 2015

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The Supreme Court granted review and ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., S218973, which presents the following issue: In an action for wrongful foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a home loan, does the borrower have standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void?

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.