Supreme Court actions of note at its Wednesday conference included:

  • The court granted review in Segal v. ASICS America Corp. and it limited the issue to:  “May a party recover costs for preparing multiple sets of trial exhibits and closing slides that were not used at trial?”  The issue involved is not momentous enough to make this a candidate for inclusion on the list of high-profile cases in a future Supreme Court annual review, but the published opinion in the matter by the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal, does “acknowledge a split in authority” whether those costs may be awarded under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(13).  The appellate court held they may, concluding that the statute’s interpretation “must reflect the reality of how complicated cases are tried.”
  • In an unusual order, the court granted the defendant’s petition for review in People v. Barton, but transferred the case to the Fourth District, Division One, “with directions to consider defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for forcible oral copulation and forcible sodomy.”  It’s unusual because the appellate court, in a published opinion, reversed the defendant’s conviction, but he sought review anyway.  The reversal required a new trial, based on the superior court’s error in dismissing a holdout juror.  The issue to be decided on remand might apparently free the defendant without another trial.  The appellate court said that, because of its decision on the dismissed-juror issue, “we need not address Barton’s other contentions on appeal.”  Now they do, at least as to one of those contentions.  Additionally, the Supreme Court denied the Attorney General’s petition for review and a depublication request by the San Diego District Attorney.
  • The court denied review in AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles, but it depublished the opinion of the Second District, Division Three, which rejected a claim, based on a disparate-impact theory, that the City had violated state and federal housing laws in approving four projects that would disproportionately displace Latino and Black residents.
  • The court also denied review and depublished in Doe v. Regents of the University of California, a case for fees under the private attorney general statute.  The Second District, Division Six, opinion held fees are available to the plaintiff, a student who obtained an order preliminarily enjoining an interim suspension that had been imposed pending a university’s administrative proceedings concerning a claim against him of dating-relationship violence.  The appellate court concluded that “[t]he injunction should deter UCSB from violating its policies requiring prompt resolution of Title IX allegations, particularly where interim suspensions are issued.”  Justice Joshua Groban was recused.
  • Following a settlement in the case, the court dismissed review in Orchard Estate Homes, Inc. v. The Orchard Homeowner Alliance.  The court had granted review in June 2019 and later limited the issue to, “When a trial court rules on a petition to reduce the votes required to pass an amendment to a homeowners association’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions, what, if any, role should voter non-participation play in the court’s decision?”
  • There were 14 criminal case grant-and-holds:  one holding for a decision in the high-profile bail case, In re Humphrey (see here, here, here, here, and here); seven more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here); four more holding for People v. Lopez (see here); one more holding for People v. Esquivel (see here and here); and one holding for both People v. Federico and People v. Padilla (see here).

[October 2 update:  Also on Wednesday, the court limited the issues in Boermeester v. Carry, in which review was granted two weeks ago.]