The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, July 30, 2014. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Review Granted
Grupp v. DHL Express, S218754—Review Granted & Held—July 30, 2014
The plaintiff, on behalf of the State of California, alleged that defendant DHL Express charged the State for airplane fuel when packages were ground-shipped, improperly charged the state a diesel fuel surcharge for ground deliveries, and fraudulently represented its routes and expenses. The plaintiff sought damages under the False Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 12651, subd. (a)(1), (2) & (3)). The trial court granted DHL’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the action.
The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, held in a published opinion that plaintiff’s action was preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1)) (Deregulation Act) and Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1)) (FAAAA) because those statutes preempt any state law affecting the price, route, or service of an air or motor carrier.
The Supreme Court granted review and ordered briefing deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., S194388, which was decided on July 28, 2014. In Harris, the Court concluded that the FAAAA did not preempt the People’s Unfair Competition Law action against the defendant trucking company for alleged violation of state labor and insurance laws.
In re Transient Occupancy Tax Cases, S218400—Review Granted—July 30, 2014
The trial court concluded that under the plain language of San Diego’s tax on transients ordinance (San Diego Mun. Code, § 35.0101, subd. (a) (TOT)), online travel companies do not have TOT obligations or liability. The ordnance provides: “For the privilege of Occupancy in any Hotel located in the City of San Diego, each Transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of six percent [ ] of the Rent charged by the [hotel proprietor].” The ordinance defines a “transient” as a person who “exercises Occupancy, or is entitled to Occupancy, . . . for a period of less than one [ ] month.” (San Diego Mun. Code, § 35.0102.)
The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, affirmed based on the ordinance’s plain language. It concluded the only persons potentially liable under the TOT are transients and hotel operators.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
Thieriot v. Wrapnews, S218835—Review Denied [Werdegar, J., voting for review]—July 30, 2014
This anti-SLAPP case presented the following issues: (1) whether the plaintiff filed a complaint based on protected activity, and (2) whether the plaintiff demonstrated a probability of prevailing. The defendant, an online publication, published an article stating that the plaintiff, the executive producer of a documentary, had filmed the documentary in Mexico without government authority and then fled the country with the movie footage and equipment. The plaintiff sued for defamation and false light invasion of privacy, alleging that the article’s allegations were false.
The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the complaint, ruling that, in publishing the article, the defendant was exercising its First Amendment right to free speech and that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reversed in an unpublished opinion, holding the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show a probability of prevailing.
Depublished
None.
