The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on July 26, 2017. 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
Boling v. Public Employee Relations Board, S242034– Review Granted – July 26, 2017
In a published decision, Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 853, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, annulled the Public Employment Relations Board’s (PERB) decision that the City of San Diego was obliged to “meet and confer” with the city employees’ union before a citizen-sponsored pension reform initiative could be placed on the ballot. The Court of Appeal held that (1) the city has no obligation to meet and confer before placing a qualified citizen-sponsored initiative on the ballot; (2) the reform initiative was not a de facto governing-body-sponsored ballot proposal under “statutory agency” principles that could have triggered the meet and confer obligations under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act; (3) the mayor’s support of the initiative could not be imputed to the city council under the doctrine of actual authority for purposes of rendering the citizen-sponsored initiative a city council-sponsored initiative; (4) the mayor did not have apparent authority to act on behalf of the city council when proposing and campaigning for the citizen-proposed reform initiative; and (5) the city council did not ratify the mayor’s acts.
This case presents the following issues: (1) When a final decision of the Public Employment Relations Board under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. Code, § § 3500 et seq.) is challenged in the Court of Appeal, what standard of review applies to the Board’s interpretation of the applicable statutes and its findings of fact? (2) Is a public agency’s duty to “meet and confer” under the Act limited to situations in which the agency’s governing body proposes to take formal action affecting employee wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment?
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
Manteca Unified School District v. Reclamation District No. 17, S242032– Review Denied [Werdegar, J., voting to grant review] – July 26, 2017
In a published decision, Manteca Unified School District v. Reclamation District No. 17 (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 730, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling that a school district was not exempt from paying assessments to a reclamation district. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) the trial court erred in declining to apply the constitutional mandate of Proposition 218 to the statutory exemption from assessments provided by Water Code section 51200; (2) the Right to Vote on Taxes Act required proof of “no special benefit” for the school district to continue to rely on the exemption from the reclamation district’s assessment authority.
Depublished
Broadway Victoria v. Norminton, Wiita & Fuster, S242266– Depublished Court of Appeal Opinion – July 26, 2017
In this legal malpractice action, in a published opinion, Broadway Victoria, LLC v. Norminton, Wiita & Fuster (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1185, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court’s grant of nonsuit on the plaintiff client’s breach of fiduciary duty claim and part of its legal malpractice claim. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) a breach of fiduciary duty claim is duplicative and should be dismissed if it arises from the same facts and seeks the same relief as a negligence claim for attorney malpractice; (2) the client’s breach of fiduciary duty claim against the attorneys was duplicative in the absence of supporting evidence to the contrary; and (3) the client’s evidence of breach of fiduciary duty was speculative so as to require that nonsuit be granted. The Supreme Court ordered the opinion depublished.
