Supreme Court will decide admissibility of subsequent sexual assault evidence in school molestation case

At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday — a double one, and with only six justices participating because of Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar’s retirement at the end of October — actions of note included:

• Supreme Court will answer Ninth Circuit’s economic loss rule question in action against Uber.
• Sexual assault evidence: The court granted review, for a second time, in Doe v. Superior Court (Mountain View School District), a case against a school district for negligently supervising a teacher who molested a fourth grader. The issue is whether evidence of molestation two years later by someone else can be used to limit emotional distress damages attributable to the teacher’s misconduct. As summarized by court staff, the issues are: “(1) Is evidence that a plaintiff in a civil action suffered a prior sexual assault admissible for impeachment purposes (Evid. Code, § 783) or inadmissible as a claim that the plaintiff did not suffer injury (Evid. Code, § 1106, subd. (a))? (2) If admissible, what procedures and quantum of proof are required to admit such evidence?” (Links added.) The Second District, Division Two, Court of Appeal, in a published opinion, held the superior court did not abuse its discretion in ruling the evidence is admissible for impeachment purposes. Last August, after the appellate court summarily denied the plaintiff’s writ petition, the Supreme Court moved very quickly to stay trial of the case and send the matter back to Division Two with instructions to decide the petition’s merits.
• Employment case grant-and-hold: The court granted-and-held in Joseph v. California Department of Corrections. The lead case is Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., which the court decided two weeks ago. In Lawson, the court held that, instead of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, a California statute provides the evidentiary standard — a more plaintiff-friendly one — for whistleblower retaliation claims. In Joseph, the Fourth District, Division Two, unpublished opinion applied the U.S. Supreme Court standard in affirming a defense summary judgment. After the Lawson opinion is final, probably by the end of the month, the Supreme Court will likely send the Joseph case back to the appellate court for reconsideration in light of Lawson.
• Collateral order appealability?: In State of California v. Hoffman, the court ordered the First District, Division One, to vacate its dismissal of the defendant’s appeal and “to show cause why (1) the order is not appealable under the collateral rule doctrine, and (2) the relief sought in the petition for review should not be granted.” It’s unclear what the case is about, but the Court of Appeal docket indicates a receivership is involved.
• Transfer of another fully briefed case: After granting review in People v. Federico in August 2020, and receiving full briefing, the court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Assembly Bill 1540, which was signed into law in October. Justice Martin Jenkins did not vote for the transfer. New legislation caused similar recent transfers in the fully briefed cases of People v. Lopez (see here) and People v. Duke (see here).
• Insurance rates: The court denied petitions for review and a depublication request in State Farm General Insurance Company v. Lara, where the published opinion of the Fourth District, Division One, concluded the state’s Insurance Commissioner improperly ordered both a reduction of homeowner insurance rates and refunds of premium payments totaling about $100,000,000.
• Van Houten parole: The court denied Manson cult follower Leslie Van Houten’s petition for review after the Second District, Division One, summarily denied her writ petition. Governors Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom have four times reversed favorable parole recommendations by the state’s parole board. (See also here.) The writ petition sought discovery of when the latest recommendation was referred to Newsom and also that reversal of the recommendation be nullified if the Governor exceeded what Van Houten claims is “his 30-day jurisdictional window” to review the recommendation. Justice Joshua Groban was recused.
• New-Legislation Grant-and-Transfers: The court granted review and transferred two more cases back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of new legislation. Assembly Bill 333 is the catalyst for both reassessment orders.
• Criminal case grant-and-holds: There were 13 criminal case grant-and-holds: seven more holding for a decision in People v. Strong (see here), three more holding for People v. Delgadillo (see here), one holding for the finality of last month’s opinion in People v. Tirado, one more holding for People v. Prudholme (see here), and one more holding for both People v. Padilla (which will be argued next month) and People v. Federico (see here), even though the court dumped Federico yesterday (see above).
• Lead case changes: In eight cases that had been grant-and-holds waiting for the July decision in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, the court is now deferring action pending its decision in People v. Strong (see here). By our count, there are 70 other Lewis grant-and-holds still pending.  There had been 327 of them.  (See here.)