GMSR: California Supreme Court Watch - A list of all civil cases now pending before the California Supreme Court

We present here a list of all civil cases now pending before the California Supreme Court, with descriptions from the Court’s official news releases. Each entry identifies the case’s practice areas and includes a link to the Court of Appeal opinion and to the Supreme Court’s docket. You can search for cases by practice area or search for specific words by using your browser’s “find” command, and the case numbers will link you to the Supreme Court dockets. Cases will continue to appear for a month after decision, with a copy of the opinion.

84 Results

#13-43 Conservatorship of McQueen, S209376. (A134337; nonpublished opinion; Alameda County Superior Court; HP05237122.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a motion for post-judgment attorney fees and costs. This case presents the following issue: Is a trial court award of statutorily-mandated fees and costs incurred on appeal subject to the Enforcement of Judgments Statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040 et seq.) if the statutory authority underlying the award is the Elder Abuse Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.)?
Review granted 05/15/2013
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-42 Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc., S209324. (A133236; 213 Cal.App.4th 587; San Mateo County Superior Court; CIV500678.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Review granted/briefing deferred 05/01/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-36 California Charter Schools Assn. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., S208611. (B242601; 212 Cal.App.4th 689; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC438336.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order in a civil action. Did the Court of Appeal adopt an incorrect methodology for determining what facilities a school district is required to afford to a charter school in accordance with Education Code section 47614?
Review granted 04/17/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-34 Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, LLC, S208716. (B238265; 212 Cal.App.4th 895; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC441761.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
Review granted 04/10/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-33 Gregory v. Cott, S209125. (B237645; 213 Cal.App.4th 41; Los Angeles County Superior Court; SC109507.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bar the complaint for damages brought by an in-home caregiver against an Alzheimer’s patient and her husband for injuries the caregiver received when the patient lunged at her?
Review granted 04/10/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-30 Cordova v. City of Los Angeles, S208130. (B236195; 212 Cal.App.4th 243; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC442048, BC443948, BC444004.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: May a government entity be held liable if a dangerous condition of public property existed and caused the injuries plaintiffs suffered in an accident, but did not cause the third party conduct that led to the accident?
Review granted 03/20/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-31 Baltazer v. Forever 21, Inc., S208345. (B237173; 212 Cal.App.4th 221; Los Angeles County Superior Court; VC059254.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Wisdom v. Accentcare, Inc., S200128 (#12-35), which includes the following issue: Is an arbitration clause in an employment application that provides “I agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application” unenforceable as substantively unconscionable for lack of mutuality, or does the language create a mutual agreement to arbitrate all such disputes? (See Roman v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462.)
Review granted/briefing deferred 03/20/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-25 Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, S208173. (A134542; 211 Cal.App.4th 1301; San Francisco County Superior Court; CGC-08-478453.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: May an architect who provides services to a residential developer be liable to the eventual purchasers of the residences for negligence in the rendition of those services?
Review granted 02/27/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-26 Central Coast Forest Assn. v. Fish & Game Com., S208181. (C060569; 211 Cal.App.4th 1433; Sacramento County Superior Court; 07CS00851.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Under the California Endangered Species Act, Fish and Game Code section 2050 et seq., may the Fish and Game Commission consider a petition to delist a species on the ground that the original listing was in error? (2) If so, does the petition at issue here contain sufficient information to warrant the Commission's further consideration?
Review granted 02/27/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-18 Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc., S207172. (B234234; 210 Cal.App.4th 915; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC442537.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the allegations of the complaint constitute disparagement for purposes of insurance coverage or the duty to defend under the “advertising injury” provision of defendant’s insurance policy?
Review granted 02/13/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-20 Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., S207536. (B234711; 210 Cal.App.4th 1516, mod. 211 Cal.App.4th 701b; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC408319.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is an employer’s honest belief that an employee was violating company policy or abusing medical leave a complete defense to the employee’s claim that the employer violated the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (Gov. Code §§ 12945.1, 12945.2)? (2) Was the decision below to vacate the arbitration award in the employer’s favor consistent with the limited judicial review of arbitration awards?
Review granted 02/13/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-21 Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, S207173. (F063849; 210 Cal.App.4th 1006; Tuolumne County Superior Court; CV56309.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Must a city comply with the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) before adopting an ordinance enacting a voter-sponsored initiative pursuant to Elections Code section 9214, subdivision (a)? (2) Is the adoption of an ordinance enacting a voter-sponsored initiative under Elections Code section 9214, subdivision (a), a “ministerial project” exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(1)?
Review granted 02/13/2013
See the City of Sonora Petition for Review
See the James Grinnell Petition for Review
See the Walmart, Inc. Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-22 Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., S207760. (B232583; 211 Cal.App.4th 314; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC369201.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
Review granted/briefing deferred 02/13/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-23 Monarrez v. Automobile Club of Southern California, S207726. (B233512; 211 Cal.App.4th 177, mod. 211 Cal.App.4th 701a; Los Angeles County Superior Court; VC055461.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, S204543 (#12-103), which concerns whether the defendant franchisor was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that it was vicariously liable for tortious conduct by a supervising employee of a franchisee.
Review granted/briefing deferred 02/13/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-13 Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., S206874. (B235484; 210 Cal.App.4th 77; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC403405.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an order denying class certification in a civil action. This case presents questions concerning the determination of whether common issues predominate in a proposed class action relating to claims that turn on whether members of the putative class are independent contractors or employees.
Review granted 01/30/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-12 Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp., S206925. (B230909; 210 Cal.App.4th 95; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC416196.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, S181004 (#10-46), which presents the following issue: Does the “mixed-motive” defense apply to employment discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)?
Review granted/briefing deferred 01/23/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-10 Henderson v. Farmers Group, Inc., S207068. (B236259; 210 Cal.App.4th 459; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC443849.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Zhang v. Superior Court, S178542 (#10-16), which presents the following issues: (1) Can an insured bring a cause of action against its insurer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based on allegations that the insurer misrepresents and falsely advertises that it will promptly and properly pay covered claims when it has no intention of doing so? (2) Does Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 bar such an action?
Review granted/briefing deferred 01/16/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion
GMSR represents Farmers Group, Inc., Defendants and Respondents

#13-09 Verdugo v. Target Corp., S207313. (9th Cir. No. 10-57008; __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 6199193; Central District of California; 2:10-cv-06930-ODW-AJW.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: “In what circumstances, if ever, does the common law duty of a commercial property owner to provide emergency first aid to invitees require the availability of an Automatic External Defibrillator (‘AED’) for cases of sudden cardiac arrest?”
Review granted 01/16/2013
See the Ninth Circuit request for decision under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548

#13-08 Riverside County Sheriff’s Dept. v. Stiglitz, S206350. (E052729, E052807; 209 Cal.App.4th 883; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC10004998). Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a petition for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the following issue: Does the hearing officer in an administrative appeal of the dismissal of a correctional officer employed by a county sheriff’s department have the authority to grant a motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531?
Review granted 01/16/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-07 Kandy Kiss of California, Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., S206354. (B234541; 209 Cal.App.4th 604; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC422116.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an award of attorney fees in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is a party who obtains the dismissal of a contract action entirely on procedural grounds entitled to an award of attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 as the prevailing party in an action on a contract?
Review granted 01/16/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-05 The Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd., S206587. (A130803; 209 Cal.App.4th 938; San Francisco County Superior Court; CGC-10-495911.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Were multistate taxpayers required to apportion business income according to the formula set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code section 25128 as amended in 1993 or could they elect to apportion income according to the formula set forth in former Revenue and Taxation Code section 38006 pursuant to the adoption of the Multistate Tax Compact in 1974?
Review granted 01/16/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#13-02 In re Maricela H., S206953. (B238635; 210 Cal.App.4th 615; Los Angeles County Superior Court; CK90742.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a juvenile dependency proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Does Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), authorize dependency jurisdiction without a finding that parental fault or neglect is responsible for the failure or inability to supervise or protect the child?
Review granted 01/03/2013
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-121 Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc., S206153. (D060269; 209 Cal.App.4th 325; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2010-00105355-CU-CO-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Review granted/briefing deferred 12/19/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-116 Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, S205889. (G045579; 208 Cal.App.4th 1506; Orange County Superior Court; 06CC00016.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Are the limitations on assignment of third party liability insurance policy benefits recognized in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934 inconsistent with the provisions of Insurance Code section 520?
Review granted 12/12/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-117 Assessor for County of Santa Barbara v. Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 1, S205876. (B229656; 208 Cal.App.4th 1412; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; 01244457.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Under Revenue and Taxation Code section 62.1, what is the proper method for determining the assessed value of the real property interest in a mobilehome park after a transfer of a membership interest in the nonprofit corporation that owns the park?
Review granted 12/12/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-118 City of Temucula v. Cooperative Patients Services, Inc., S206085. (E053310; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1103777.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the issuance of a preliminary injunction in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638 (12-03), which includes issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities.
Review granted/briefing deferred 12/12/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-119 Reyes v. Liberman Broadcsting, Inc., S205907. (B235211; 208 Cal.App.4th 1537; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC438669.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civilaction. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
Review granted/briefing deferred 12/12/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-114 Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals, S205568. (F063023; 208 Cal.App.4th 557; Stanislaus County Superior Court; 662696.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and denied in part an order denying a special motion to strike in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Must a physician obtain a judgment through mandamus review setting aside a hospital’s decision to terminate the physician’s privileges prior to pursuing a whistleblower retaliation action under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5?
Review granted 11/14/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-112 Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto, S204771. (H036663; nonpublished opinion; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV154134.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the 90-day statute of limitations for challenging an agency decision under the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code. § 66499.37) or the 180-day statute of limitations for challenging the imposition of “any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project” (Gov. Code, § 66020) apply to plaintiff’s action challenging the city’s imposition of conditions on a development project pursuant to a local ordinance?
Review granted 10/31/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-110 Caron v. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, S205263. (G044550; 208 Cal.App.4th 7; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2010-00369466.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
Review granted/briefing deferred 10/24/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion
GMSR represents Mission Imports, Defendant and Appellant

#12-109 American States Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, S205073. (E052849; nonpublished opinion; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVVS703193.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Was a form, which was included in the envelope containing policy documents sent to the insured and which stated that the insured was covered for any vehicle he drove, part of the insurance policy? (2) If so, did that form create an ambiguity in coverage that should be construed against the insurer?
Review granted 10/24/2012
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-107 Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., S204804. (9th Cir. No. 10-56846; 689 F.3d 1134; Central District of California; 2:09-cv-06485-AG-RNB.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. “As restated by the court, the question presented is: “May an employer, consistent with California’s compensation requirements, allocate an employee’s commission payments to the pay periods for which they were earned?”
Review granted 10/17/2012
See the Ninth Circuit request for decision under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548

#12-108 City of Hayward v. Trustees of California State University, S203939. (A131412, A131413, A132423, A132424; 207 Cal.App.4th 446; Alameda County Superior Court; RG09480852, RG09481095.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in City of San Diego v. Trustees of California State University, S199557 (#12-40), which includesthe following issue: Does a state agency that may have an obligation to make “fair-share” payments for the mitigation of off-site impacts of a proposed project satisfy its duty to mitigate under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) by stating that it has sought funding from the Legislature to pay for such mitigation and that, if the requested funds are not appropriated, it may proceed with the project on the ground that mitigation is infeasible?
Review granted 10/17/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-104 Valdez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., S204387. (B237147; 207 Cal.App.4th 1.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal annulled a decision of the Board. This case presents the following issue: Does Labor Code section 4616.6 exclude from evidence reports of a treating physician obtained by an applicant outside of his or her employer’s Medical Provider Network?
Review granted 10/10/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-103 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, S204543. (B235099; 207 Cal.App.4th 385; Ventura County Superior Court; 56-2009-00347668-CU-OE-SIM.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the question discussed in the Court of Appeal’s opinion, namely, whether the defendant franchisor is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that it is vicariously liable for tortious conduct by a supervising employee of a franchisee.
Review granted 10/10/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-100 Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, S204221. (C063863; 206 Cal.App.4th 1319; Sacramento County Superior Court; 34200980000249.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Did the trial court properly find that employee misconduct within the meaning of Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 671 disqualified a discharged employee from receiving unemployment insurance benefits?
Review granted 09/26/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-97 Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032. (B235158; 206 Cal.App.4th 949; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC356521.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a motion to compel arbitration and dismissing class claims. This case presents the following issues: (1) Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights? (2) Does the high court’s decision permit arbitration agreements to override the statutory right to bring representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.)? (3) Did defendant waive its right to compel arbitration?
Review granted 09/19/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-98 County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective, S204663. (B233419; 207 Cal.App.4th 601; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC457089.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the issuance of a preliminary injunction in a civil action. The court ordered briefing in Alternative Medical Cannabis Collective and 420 Caregivers deferred pending decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638 (12-03), and People v. G3 Holistic, Inc., S198395 (#12-04), which include issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities.
Review granted/briefing deferred 09/19/2012
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-99 420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, S204684. (B230436; 207 Cal.App.4th 703; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC433942.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the issuance of a preliminary injunction in a civil action. The court ordered briefing in Alternative Medical Cannabis Collective and 420 Caregivers deferred pending decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638 (12-03), and People v. G3 Holistic, Inc., S198395 (#12-04), which include issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities.
Review granted/briefing deferred 09/19/2012
See the 420 Caregivers, LLC Petition for Review
See the Melrose Quality Pain, Inc. Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-92 In re Marriage of Green, S203561. (A129436; 205 Cal.App.4th 1475, mod. 206 Cal.App.4th 548a; Contra Costa County Superior Court; D0801292.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a marital dissolution action. This case presents the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that one spouse’s four years of CalPERS service credits, which were purchased partly with community funds and were based on his military service before the marriage, were not entirely his separate property and had to be allocated between community and separate property?
Review granted 08/29/2012 - Oral Argument 05/08/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-88 Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, S202828. (B232655; 205 Cal.App.4th 552; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS125233.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case includes the following issue: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), is a public agency required to evaluate a project’s potential traffic and other impacts using a baseline consisting of the existing physical conditions in the affected area during the period of environmental review, or may an agency elect to evaluate the impacts of a project only against projected future conditions?
Review granted 08/08/2012 - Oral Argument 05/07/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-81 Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC, S203124. (9th Cir. Nos. 07-56692, 07-056693; 682 F.3d 779; Central District of California; CV-04-00407-VAP, CV-02-01327-VAP.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: “Does California Civil Code section 2527 compel speech in violation of article I, section 2 of the California Constitution?”
Review granted 07/18/2012
See the Ninth Circuit request for decision under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548

#12-80 McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, S202037. (B200831; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC361469.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Can a local ordinance preclude the filing of a class claim for a tax refund, or are the provisions of the Government Claims Act excepting from its reach claims brought under a “statute prescribing procedures for the refund . . . of any tax” (Gov. Code, § 905, subd. (a)) inapplicable to local ordinances?
Review granted 07/11/2012 - Oral Argument 03/05/2013 - Decided 04/25/2013
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-69 Kurwa v. Kislinger, S201619. (B228078; 204 Cal.App.4th 21; Los Angeles County Superior Court; KC045216.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Was the judgment in this case, which dismissed most of the causes of action with prejudice and the remainder, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, without prejudice and with a waiver of the applicable statute of limitations, an appealable judgment?
Review granted 06/20/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-67 Mayers v. Volt Management Corp., S200709. (G045036; 203 Cal.App.4th 1194; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2010-00430432.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Review granted 06/13/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-65 Donkin v. Donkin, S202210. (B228704; 204 Cal.App.4th 622; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BP109463.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a probate proceeding. This case presents the following issues: Did any of the proposed challenges to the disposition of the trust at issue in this case trigger the trust’s no contest clause? Can a challenge that is founded on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee violate a no contest clause?
Review granted 06/13/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-58 Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, S201116. (A131254; 203 Cal.App.4th 656; Alameda County Superior Court; RG10517314.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Did the City of Berkeley properly conclude that a proposed project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) under the categorical exemptions set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15303, subdivision (a), and 15332, and that the “Significant Effects Exception” set forth in section 15300.2, subdivision (c), of the regulations did not operate to remove the project from the scope of those categorical exemptions?
Review granted 05/23/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-56 City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective, S201454. (G043909; 203 Cal.App.4th 1413, mod. 204 Cal.App.4th 704a; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2009-00298887.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the issuance of a preliminary injunction in a civil action. The court ordered briefing in this matter deferred pending decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638 (12-03), which includes issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities.
Review granted/briefing deferred 05/16/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-55 City of Lake Forest v. Lake Forest Wellness Center and Collective, S201372. (G043817, G043867; nonpublished opinion; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2009-00298887.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the issuance of a preliminary injunction in a civil action. The court ordered briefing in this matter deferred pending decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638 (12-03), which includes issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities.
Review granted/briefing deferred 05/16/2012
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-54 Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization, S200475. (B225932; 202 Cal.App.4th 1092; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC403167.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Was the economic impact statement prepared by the State Board of Equalization prior to adopting Property Tax Rule 474 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 18, § 474) adequate under the standards prescribed by Government Code section 11346.5? (2) Is Property Tax Rule 474 inconsistent with Revenue and Taxation Code section 51, subdivision (d), and thus invalid pursuant to Government Code section 11342.2?
Review granted 05/16/2012 - Oral Argument 05/09/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-53 In re Garcia on Admission, S202512. Original proceeding. The court ordered The Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California to show cause before this court why its motion for admission of Sergio C. Garcia to the State Bar of California should be granted. This case includes the following issues: (1) Does 8 U.S.C. section 1621(c) apply and preclude this court’s admission of an undocumented immigrant to the State Bar of California? Does any other statute, regulation, or authority preclude the admission? (2) Is there any state legislation that provides — as specifically authorized by 8 U.S.C. section 1621(d) — that undocumented immigrants are eligible for professional licenses in fields such as law, medicine, or other professions, and, if not, what significance, if any, should be given to the absence of such legislation? (3) Does the issuance of a license to practice law impliedly represent that the licensee may be legally employed as an attorney? (4) If licensed, what are the legal and public policy limitations, if any, on an undocumented immigrant’s ability to practice law? (5) What, if any, other public policy concerns arise with a grant of this application?
Review granted 05/16/2012

#12-52 Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn., S200923. (A125557, A126827; 203 Cal.App.4th 212, mod. 203 Cal.App.4th 1042b; Alameda County Superior Court; 2001035537.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents issues concerning the certification of class actions in wage and hour misclassification litigation and the use of representative testimony and statistical evidence at trial of such a class action.
Review granted 05/16/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-45 Martinez v. Brownco Construction Co., Inc., S200944. (B226665; 203 Cal.App.4th 507; Los Angeles County Superior Court; KC050128.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: When a plaintiff makes two reasonable settlement offers under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, both of which expire by operation of law, does the second offer extinguish the first such that the later offer is the operative one for purposes of the cost-shifting provisions of section 998, subdivision (d)?
Review granted 05/09/2012 - Oral Argument 05/08/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-49 Buzenes v. Nuvell Financial Services, S200376. (B221870; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC407366.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Review granted/briefing deferred 05/09/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-41 Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, S200872. (B231245; 203 Cal.App.4th 292; Los Angeles County Superior Court; NC055491.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a request for a preliminary injunction. This case presents the following issue: Are the names of police officers involved in on-duty shooting incidents subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act?
Review granted 04/18/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-40 City of San Diego v. Trustees of the California State University, S199557. (D057446; 201 Cal.App.4th 1134; San Diego County Superior Court; GIC855643, GIC855701, 37-2007-00083692-CU-WM-CTL, 37-2007-00083773-CU-MC-CTL, 37-2007-00083768-CU-TT-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Does a state agency that may have an obligation to make “fair-share” payments for the mitigation of off-site impacts of a proposed project satisfy its duty to mitigate under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) by stating that it has sought funding from the Legislature to pay for such mitigation and that, if the requested funds are not appropriated, it may proceed with the project on the ground that mitigation is infeasible?
Review granted 04/18/2012
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-35 Wisdom v. Accentcare, Inc., S200128. (C065744; 202 Cal.App.4th 591; Sacramento County Superior Court; 34-2009-00063028CUOEGDS.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. This case includes the following issue: Is an arbitration clause in an employment application that provides “I agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application” unenforceable as substantively unconscionable for lack of mutuality, or does the language create a mutual agreement to arbitrate all such disputes? (See Roman v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462.)
Review granted 03/28/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-34 Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Garcia, S199639. (9th Cir. No. 10-55879;669 F.3d 956; Central District of California; 2:09-cv-09289-VBF-CT.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: Does Education Code section 56041 — which provides generally that for qualifying children ages eighteen to twenty-two, the school district where the child’s parent resides is responsible for providing special education services — apply to children who are incarcerated in county jails?
Review granted 03/28/2012
See the Ninth Circuit request for decision under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548

#12-33 Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119. (B228027; 201 Cal.App.4th 74; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC433634.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. This case includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Review granted 03/21/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-31 Estate of Duke, S199435. (B227954; 201 Cal.App.4th 599; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BP108971.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a probate proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Should the “four corners” rule (see Estate of Barnes (1965) 63 Cal.2d 580) be reconsidered in order to permit drafting errors in a will to be reformed consistent with clear and convincing extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s intent?
Review granted 03/21/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion
GMSR represents Jewish National Fund

#12-25 Rose v. Bank of America, N.A., S199074. (B230859; 200 Cal.App.4th 1441; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC433460.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Can a cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) be predicated on an alleged violation of the Truth in Savings Act (12 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.), despite Congress’s repeal of the private right of action initially provided for under that Act?
Review granted 03/14/2012 - Oral Argument 05/07/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-15 In re Cipro Cases I & II, S198616. (D056361; 200 Cal.App.4th 442; San Diego County Superior Court; JCCP4154, JCCP4220.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: May a suit under the Cartwright Antitrust Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720 et seq.) be brought to challenge “reverse exclusionary payments” made by pharmaceutical manufacturers to settle patent litigation with generic drug producers and prolong the life of the patents in question?
Review granted 02/15/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-14 Biancalana v. T.D. Service Co., S198562. (H035400; 200 Cal.App.4th 527; Santa Cruz County Superior Court; CV162804.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: When a trustee makes an error in the processing and announcement of a beneficiary’s “credit bid” during foreclosure proceedings on a deed of trust, and the trustee has not yet issued a trustee’s deed to the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, does the trustee have the discretionary authority to set aside the foreclosure sale due to that error?
Review granted 02/15/2012 - Oral Argument 04/04/2013 - Decided 05/16/2013
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-03 City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638. (E052400; 200 Cal.App.4th 885; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC10009872.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities, and standing to challenge such ordinances.
Review granted 01/18/2012 - Oral Argument 02/05/2013 - Decided 05/06/2013
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-04 People v. G3 Holistic, Inc., S198395. (E051663; nonpublished opinion; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVRS1002649.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities, and standing to challenge such ordinances.

02/27/2013: In this case in which review was previously granted, the court ordered further proceedings deferred pending decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638 (#12-03), which includes issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities.
Review granted/briefing deferred 01/18/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Labor Commissioner jurisdiction, Federal Arbitration Act
#09-55 Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, S174475. (B204902; 174 Cal.App.4th 546; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS107161.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. This case presents the following issues: (1) Can a mandatory employment arbitration agreement be enforced prior to the conclusion of an administrative proceeding conducted by the Labor Commissioner concerning an employee’s statutory wage claim? (2) Was the Labor Commissioner’s jurisdiction over employee’s statutory wage claim divested by the Federal Arbitration Act under Preston v. Ferrer (2008) __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 978, 169 L.Ed.2d 917?

01/11/2012: On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the court directed the parties to brief the significance of AT&T Mobility LLC. v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742, to the issues in this case.
Supplemental briefing ordered 01/11/2012 - Oral Argument 04/03/2013
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-134 El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, S196830. (B209056; 198 Cal.App.4th 664, mod. 198 Cal.App.4th 1234c; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS105623.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Could the executive committee of the hospital medical staff delegate to the hospital governing board its authority to select the hearing officer and the physician members of the peer review panel to hear a physician’s challenge to the governing board’s denial of his application for reappointment to the hospital medical staff? (2) If the hospital by-laws did not permit this procedure, was the peer review panel selected by the governing board “improperly constituted,” requiring a new peer review procedure conducted by a new hearing panel selected by the executive committee?
Review granted 11/30/2011 - Oral Argument 04/04/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-130 Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., S196568. (C064627; 198 Cal.App.4th 29; San Joaquin County Superior Court; CV033425.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: Did the trial court err in dismissing plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) on grounds of after-acquired evidence and unclean hands, based on plaintiff’s use of false documentation to obtain employment in the first instance? Did Senate Bill No. 1818 (2001–2002 Reg. Session) preclude application of those doctrines in this case? (See Civ. Code, § 3339; Gov. Code, § 7285; Health & Saf. Code, § 24000; Lab. Code, § 1171.5.)

02/27/2013:The court requested the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the following question: Does federal immigration law preempt state law and thereby preclude an undocumented worker from obtaining, as a remedy for a violation of “state labor and employment laws” (Lab. Code, § 1171.5; Civ. Code, § 3339; Gov. Code, § 7285; Health & Saf. Code, § 24000), an award of compensatory remedies, including back pay? (See Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (2002) 535 U.S. 137.)
Review granted 11/16/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-127 Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education, S195852. (B212966; 197 Cal.App.4th 436; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS112656.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does due process require an evidentiary hearing before a neutral hearing officer or decision-maker prior to the revocation of a charter school’s charter by a county board of education?
Review granted 10/26/2011 - Oral Argument 05/30/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion
GMSR represents Los Angeles County Office of Education

Keywords: Unfair competition, insurer misrepresentations, Moradi-Shalal, Business and Professions Code section 17200
#11-118 Hughes v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., S195069. (B224990; 196 Cal.App.4th 754; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC426745.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order dismissing a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Zhang v. Superior Court, S178542 (#10-16), which presents the following issues: (1) Can an insured bring a cause of action against its insurer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based on allegations that the insurer misrepresents and falsely advertises that it will promptly and properly pay covered claims when it has no intention of doing so? (2) Does Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 bar such an action?
Review granted/briefing deferred 09/28/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-111 Sierra Club v. Superior Court, S194708. (G044138; 195 Cal.App.4th 1537; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2009-00121878.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Is Orange County’s computer database of public land records exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) as a “computer mapping system[]” (Gov. Code, § 6254.9, subd. (b)), or is that term limited to computer programs that read such a database?
Review granted 09/14/2011 - Oral Argument 05/07/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-104 Sander v. State Bar of California, S194951. (A128647; 196 Cal.App.4th 614; San Francisco County Superior Court; CPF08508880.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) What ground, if any, exists for finding that the information sought by plaintiffs is information that is subject to public disclosure? (2) What is the effect, if any, of the representation of confidentiality made by the State Bar to the individuals from whom the information was collected? (3) Does the form in which the requested information is regularly maintained affect whether the State Bar must provide the requested information?
Review granted 08/24/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-103 In re Marriage of Valli, S193990. (B222435; 195 Cal.App.4th 776; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BD414038.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a marital dissolution action. This case includes the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that an insurance policy on the husband’s life was the wife’s separate property upon dissolution of the marriage, even though the policy was purchased during the marriage and the premiums prior to the couple’s separation were paid with community funds, because the policy listed the wife as the owner?
Review granted 08/24/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-102 Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization, S194121. (D056943; 195 Cal.App.4th 285; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2008-00097074-CU-MC-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for refund of property taxes. This case presents the following issue: How do limitations on the taxation of intangible property (see Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 2; Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 110, 212; Roehm v. County of Orange (1948) 32 Cal.2d 280) apply to the assessment of a power plant subject to annual assessment by the State Board of Equalization (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 19), when the owner of the plant used emission reduction credits (see Health & Saf. Code, § 40709) to offset its emissions and obtain authorization to construct the plant?
Review granted 08/24/2011 - Oral Argument 05/29/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-98 Hayes v. County of San Diego, S193997. (9th Cir. No. 09-55644; __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 2315191; Southern District of California, 3:07–cv–01738–DMS–JMA.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As restated by the court, the question presented is: “Whether under California negligence law, liability can arise from tactical conduct and decisions employed by law enforcement preceding the use of deadly force.”
Review granted 08/10/2011 - Oral Argument 05/29/2013
See the Ninth Circuit request for decision under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548

#11-97 People ex re. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., S194388. (B220966; 195 Cal.App.4th 765; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC397600.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) that is based on a trucking company’s alleged violation of state labor and insurance laws “related to the price, route, or service” of the company and, therefore, preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. § 14501)?
Review granted 08/10/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-95 Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., S193493. (H034826; 194 Cal.App.4th 584; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV112520, CV115283.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is a person’s good faith belief in the validity of a marriage measured by an objective or subjective standard for the purpose of determining the person’s status as a putative spouse under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60?
Review granted 08/10/2011 - Oral Argument 05/08/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Employee furloughs, delegation of powers
#11-82 City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, S192828. (B228732; 193 Cal.App.4th 1159; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS126192.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a petition to compel arbitration. This case presents the following issue: Could grievances challenging the imposition of furloughs on employees covered by a ratified Memorandum of Understanding be referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement, or was arbitration barred as an improper delegation of the city’s discretionary salary-setting and budget-making powers?

10/31/2012: The court requested the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: Do the memorandums of understanding at issue here, including but not limited to their management rights clauses (article 1.9), render the decision whether to impose employee furloughs inarbitrable?
Review granted 07/13/2011 - Oral Argument 04/03/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Privacy
#11-67 County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm., S191944. (B217668; 192 Cal.App.4th 1409; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS116993.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Under the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1), do the interests of non-union-member public employees in the privacy of their personal contact information outweigh the interests of the union representing their bargaining unit in obtaining that information in furtherance of its duties as a matter of labor law to provide fair and equal representation of union-member and non-union-member employees within the bargaining unit? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding to the trial court with directions to apply a specific notice procedure to protect such employees’ privacy rights instead of permitting the parties to determine the proper procedure for doing so?
Review granted 06/15/2011 - Oral Argument 03/05/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Civil Code section 1714, Business and Professions Code section 25602, tavern keepers, alcoholic beverages
#11-28 Ennabe v. Manosa, S189577. (B222784; 190 Cal.App.4th 707; Los Angeles County Superior Court; KC053945.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is a person who hosts a party at a residence, and who furnishes alcoholic beverages and charges an admission fee to uninvited guests, a “social host” within the meaning of Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (c), and hence immune from civil liability for furnishing alcoholic beverages? (2) Under the circumstances here, does such a person fall within an exception stated by Business and Professions Code section 25602.1 to the ordinary immunity from civil liability for furnishing alcoholic beverages provided by Business and Professions Code section 25602, subdivision (b)?
Review granted 03/23/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Nursing licensure, preemption, Nursing Practice Act (Business and Professions Code section 2700 et seq.)
#10-115 American Nurses Assn. v. O’Connell, S184583. (C061150; 185 Cal.App.4th 393; Sacramento County Superior Court; 07AS04631.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case includes the following issues: (1) Under California law, are designated school personnel who are not licensed nurses allowed to administer insulin to diabetic students pursuant to treating physicians’ orders under a Section 504 Plan (29 U.S.C. § 794; 34 C.F.R. § 104.1 et seq.) or an Individualized Education Program (20 U.S.C. §1414(d))? (2) If not, is California law preempted by federal law?
Review granted 09/29/2010 - Oral Argument 05/29/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Unfair competition, insurer misrepresentations, Moradi-Shalal, Business and Professions Code section 17200
#10-16 Zhang v. Superior Court, S178542. (E047207; 178 Cal.App.4th 1081; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVVS701287.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Can an insured bring a cause of action against its insurer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based on allegations that the insurer misrepresents and falsely advertises that it will promptly and properly pay covered claims when it has no intention of doing so? (2) Does Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 bar such an action?
Review granted 02/10/2010 - Oral Argument 05/08/2013
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Taxation, unfair competition, Consumers Legal Remedies Act
#09-75 Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, S176146. (B198827; 176 Cal.App.4th 1156; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; 1221332.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Loeffler v. Target Corp., S173972 (# 09-54), which presents the following issue: Does article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution or Revenue and Taxation Code section 6932 bar a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on transactions that were not taxable?
Review granted/briefing deferred 11/19/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Taxation, unfair competition, Consumers Legal Remedies Act
#09-54 Loeffler v. Target Corp., S173972. (B199287; 173 Cal.App.4th 1229; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC360004.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution or Revenue and Taxation Code section 6932 bar a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on transactions that were not taxable?

Supplemental Briefing Ordered - 04/11/2013: The court requested the parties to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether and, if so, in what manner the doctrine of primary jurisdiction (see Jonathan Neil & Assoc., Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917, 931-937), appropriately may be invoked and applied in the present case, including whether the issue was preserved in the trial and appellate courts and whether article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution would be implicated by applying the doctrine.
Review granted 09/10/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

[ News ]