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, January 21, 2015. 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. This week, we also include a discussion of a grant-and-transfer in a criminal case because the case raises important First Amendment questions.
Review Granted
Gottschall v. Crane Co., S222887—Review Granted and Held—January 21, 2015
The court ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc., S209927, which includes the following issue: Should a defendant that supplied raw asbestos to a manufacturer of products be found liable to the plaintiffs on a failure to warn theory, or is there a “sophisticated intermediary” defense in such cases?
In Gottschall, a worker, exposed to an “asbestos-related disease” while working at shipyards and similar facilities, filed two actions making the same claims, one in California state court and the other in Pennsylvania federal court. The Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, held in a published decision, Gottschall v. Crane Co. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1115, that the Pennsylvania federal court was wrong in ruling the appellant was a “sophisticated user.” Under the “sophisticated user” doctrine, a manufacturer of a potentially dangerous product cannot be liable for allegedly failing to warn the end user when the end user was sophisticated and therefore presumably aware of the product’s risks. The Court of Appeal held the federal court’s resolution of the “sophisticated user” issue was wrong under California law. The court further held that, as a result, collateral estoppel did not apply in the California state court action and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant on that basis.
[Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy LLP represents the defendant in Webb.]
People v. Raef, S222744— Review Granted and Transferred— January 21, 2015
The question presented is whether California’s new anti-paparazzi driving statute, Vehicle Code section 40008, on its face violates the free speech clauses of the United States and California constitutions by identifying certain reckless driving offenses and providing that if an individual commits those offenses with the intent to photograph or record the news, that individual is subject to significantly enhanced misdemeanor criminal penalties, including up to six months’ imprisonment.
Defendant, a photographer, is the first individual to be criminally prosecuted under section 40008. He demurred to the information charging him with violating section 40008, claiming the statute on its face violates the free speech guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. The trial court agreed that the statute is unconstitutional, ruling it targets protected First Amendment activity and fails to pass intermediate scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored and applies broadly to political newsgatherers, amateur reporters, and even others such as wedding photographers rushing to a ceremony. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court reversed.
The defendant challenged the Appellate Division’s ruling by a petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, summarily denied the writ petition “for failure to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief.” The Court of Appeal also denied the defendant’s petition to transfer the case to the Court of Appeal “for failure to demonstrate that transfer is necessary to secure uniformity of opinion or to settle an important question of law.”
The Supreme Court stayed proceedings in the trial court, then granted review and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal “with directions to vacate its order denying mandate and to issue an order to show cause to be heard before that court when the proceeding is ordered on calendar. The stay previously issued by this court remains in effect pending further order of the Court of Appeal.”
[Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy LLP represents the defendant in Raef.]
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
