In the last five years, the Supreme Court has granted 18 of the last 19 federal appellate court requests 
to answer questions of California law. And even the one denial wasn’t really a denial. There hasn’t been a flat “no” since March 2012.
The string of grants includes today’s action in Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. In that case, the Ninth Circuit has asked: “Under § 98(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, must the affiant be physically located and personally available for service of process at the address provided in the declaration that is within 150 miles of the place of trial?” The procedural question, arising only in limited civil cases, is relevant to the Ninth Circuit’s determination whether the defendants in the case misused the section 98 procedure and thus violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
