Here are some of the notable actions at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference:

Racial Justice Act separate statement. See here.

HIV/AIDS drug. The court granted review in Gilead Tenofovir Cases. Justice Martin Jenkins was recused. The First District, Division Four, Court of Appeal published opinion allowed a negligence case to proceed against the manufacturer of a drug to treat HIV/AIDS. The plaintiffs are claiming not that the drug they used — and suffered adverse side effects from — was defective, but that, to maximize profits from the drug, the manufacturer deferred development of another HIV/AIDS-treatment drug, a drug with a potentially lower risk of adverse effects. Division Four held “the legal duty of a manufacturer to exercise reasonable care can, in appropriate circumstances, extend beyond the duty not to market a defective product.”

[May 3 update: Here’s the issue as summarized by court staff — “Does a drug manufacturer have a duty of reasonable care to users of a drug it is currently selling, which is not alleged to be defective, when making decisions about the commercialization of an allegedly safer, and at least equally effective, alternative drug?”]

PAGA grant-and-hold. Morales v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC is another grant-and-hold for Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (see here), where the court limited the issue to: “Does a plaintiff in a representative action filed under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq.) (PAGA) have the right to intervene, or object to, or move to vacate, a judgment in a related action that purports to settle the claims that plaintiff has brought on behalf of the State?” Turrieta will be argued next week. (Horvitz & Levy is Lyft’s appellate counsel in Turrieta.) The Second District, Division Five, unpublished opinion in Morales — an employment wage case — affirmed the denial of an intervention motion, the approval of a settlement, and the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment.

Criminal case grant-and-hold. There was just one criminal case grant-and-hold this week. That case is another one waiting for a decision in People v. Patton (see here).

Grant-and-hold disposition (see here). The court dismissed review in Figueroa v. FCA US LLC (see here), which was holding for the March opinion in Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC (2024) 15 Cal.5th 792 (see here). Horvitz & Levy was counsel for the defendant in Figueroa.