In addition to denying review of an unsuccessful challenge to a state law that limits police cooperation with immigration law enforcement, the Supreme Court’s actions of note at its Wednesday conference included:
- The court granted review in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. The Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal’s published opinion in the class action case held that only a third party eavesdropper, not the parties to a phone call, violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act by making an unconsented-to recording of the call. Saying that there is no relevant California case law but that federal district courts are divided on the issue, the appellate court interpreted a part of the Act — Penal Code section 632.7 — that makes it illegal for a person to, “without the consent of all parties to a communication, intercept[ ] or receive[ ] and intentionally record[ ]” the communication. The Act provides criminal penalties and civil liability for violations.
- The court denied review in Rall v. Tribune 365, LLC, but it depublished the Second District, Division Eight, opinion concerning the anti-SLAPP statute. The opinion came after a Supreme Court remand to reconsider in light of Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871 (see here), the case for which Rall had been on hold. The appellate court’s decision for a second time affirmed defense anti-SLAPP motions in a defamation and wrongful termination case by a political cartoonist and blogger against the Los Angeles Times and others.
- There were three criminal case grant-and-holds: one holding for a decision in People v. Gentile (see here); one holding for People v. Stamps (see here), which will be argued next week; and one holding for In re Gadlin (see here).
- There was one more grant-and-transfer for reconsideration in light of Senate Bill 136. (See here.)
- In In re Peppler, a pro per’s habeas corpus petition, the court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, concerning the petitioner’s right to relief under People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, a Proposition 47 case (see here).
[April 3 update: also, the court asked for supplemental briefing in two cases.
- In Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir (see here and here), the issue to be briefed is: “Does the exception to the referendum power in article II, section 9, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution apply to all statutes providing for tax levies, or only those statutes providing for tax levies that are ‘for usual current expenses of the State’? (See Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 836, fn. *.)”
- In In re Palmer (see here), the issue to be briefed is: “What bearing, if any, does the adoption of the Board of Parole Hearings’ final regulations governing parole consideration hearings for youth offenders have on this court’s examination of the question presented for review in the above-titled case?”]
