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, October 14, 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.
Review Granted
Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, S228277—Review Granted—October 14, 2015
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the denial of defendant former employees’ motion for summary judgment in a prior action for misappropriation of trade secrets conclusively establish that their former employer had probable cause to bring the action and thus preclude the employees’ subsequent action for malicious prosecution, even if the trial court in the prior action later found it had been brought in bad faith? (2) Is the former employees’ malicious prosecution action against the employer’s former attorneys barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6?
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, affirmed the granting of an anti-SLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) and held in a published decision, Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 81, that the denial of summary judgment for former employees in the underlying action barred their subsequent malicious prosecution action, finding the interim ruling on the merits established probable cause in the underlying action even though, ultimately, the employees successfully defended against the lawsuit and the trial court sanctioned the other side for bringing it in bad faith. The court also concluded, however, that the malicious prosecution lawsuit was timely because the one-year statute of limitations for some actions against attorneys (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6) was inapplicable even though the defendants were the attorneys for the plaintiffs’ former adversary.
Bally Total Fitness of California v. Superior Court, S229011—Review Granted and Held—October 14, 2015
The Supreme Court granted review after the Court of Appeal summarily denied a petition for writ of mandate. Further action was ordered deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, S226645, which presents the question whether invoices for legal services sent to the County of Los Angeles by outside counsel are within the scope of the attorney-client privilege and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, even with all references to attorney opinions, advice and similar information redacted.
Newark Unified School District v. Superior Court, S229112—Review Granted and Held—October 14, 2015
The Supreme Court granted review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate. The Court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, S223876, which presents the following issues: (1) Does inadvertent disclosure of attorney work product and privileged documents in response to a Public Records Act request waive those privileges and protections? (2) Should the attorney who received the documents be disqualified because she examined them and refused to return them?
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division One, held in a published decision, Newark Unified School District v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 33, that the inadvertent release of documents under the Public Records Act does not waive the attorney-client privilege, concluding that waiver as a result of an inadvertent release was not contemplated by the Legislature when it enacted Government Code section 6254.5.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
