The Supreme Court didn’t straight grant any cases at its conference yesterday, but it did take some notable actions.
Once again, with the court’s six-month-long vacancy, it was another conference with just six justices participating.
Former Bar exec’s bar license suspended
See: Supreme Court suspends license of former State Bar executive director.
Workers’ compensation grant-and-hold
Zenith Insurance Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board is another grant-and-hold for Mayor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (see here). The Mayor issues, as summarized by court staff (see here), are: “(1) May the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board apply equitable tolling to act upon a petition for reconsideration beyond the 60-day period provided in Labor Code section 5909, when the Appeals Board did not receive the petition for reconsideration until after the 60-day period has elapsed? (2) Did the Court of Appeal act in excess of its jurisdiction in granting relief under traditional mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), where petitioner did not file a timely petition for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5909?”
The Sixth District Court of Appeal’s belatedly published opinion reversed an Appeals Board order that in turn had rescinded an administrative law judge’s denial of compensation to a restaurant cook injured during an altercation with the restaurant’s chef. The appellate court held the Board’s order came too late and, thus, “the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.” It also concluded that “the narrow grounds for the Board to exercise equitable tolling have not been met in this case.”
Depublication: LPS conservatorship jury waiver
The court denied review in Conservatorship of B.K., but it granted the request to depublish the Second District, Division Four, opinion, which affirmed the renewal of a conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act after a court trial.
Division Four rejected an argument the superior didn’t adequately advise the conservatee of her jury trial rights or ensure that the jury trial waiver was knowing and intelligent. In so ruling, the appellate court “decline[d] to follow the reasoning of” the Second District, Division Six, decision in Conservatorship of Heather W. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 378, doing so for the same reason as the Sixth District in Conservatorship of C.O. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 894.
Division Four also concluded that, in any event, if there had been error, it was harmless. “There is no suggestion that a jury trial, had B.K. chosen one, would have resulted in a different outcome,” the opinion states. Just a guess, but that alternative holding might be the reason for the depublication, because it’s been held that an erroneous denial of jury trial is automatically reversible. (See TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766, 787–788.)
There was no petition for review in Heather W. The Supreme Court denied review in C.O. with Justice Liu recording a dissenting vote.
Another Racial Justice Act OSC
The court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, in the pro per’s habeas corpus petition — filed almost a year ago — in In re Holmes involving a claim under California’s Racial Justice Act (see here, here, and here).
Cause is to be shown “why petitioner is not entitled to the appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e)(5) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who pleads a plausible allegation of a violation of the Racial Justice Act] in light of the statistical data provided by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in Three Strikes sentences and firearm and gang enhancements charged and imposed in Los Angeles County.”
The court has made many orders like this before. (See here and, recently, here.)
Dissenting votes: no-injury recoveries
The court denied review in Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., but Justices Corrigan and Groban recorded votes to grant. In a published opinion, the Fourth District, Division One, held that job applicants suing for violations of California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act can “recover the statutory sum as a remedy for a violation of their statutory rights, without any further showing of injury.” ICRAA requires compliance with various disclosure and consent mandates before an employer may obtain an investigative consumer report to aid them in making employment decisions.
Division One disagreed with the decisions of the Fifth District in Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 671 and the Fourth District, Division Three, in Muha v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 199, which interpreted a similar statute. The Supreme Court denied review in Muha and denied review and two requests for depublication in Limon.
Division One agreed with Yeh v. Barrington Pacific, LLC, in which a Second District, Division Three, published opinion found there was no injury requirement when suing for ICRAA violations in the context of screening apartment rental applicants. The Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Yeh without any dissenting votes.
Horvitz & Levy was appellate counsel for the defendants and filed the petition for review in Parsonage. It filed the petition for review in Yeh.
Dissenting vote: transfer from juvenile to criminal court
Justice Liu recorded a dissenting vote from the denial of review in In re R.A. A First District, Division Two, unpublished opinion held the superior court didn’t improperly apply amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(3) in determining whether the defendant should have had his murder and robbery case transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court over 15 years earlier.
The statute — as amended by Proposition 57 after the transfer in this case — makes a prerequisite to a transfer a court finding “by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” It can be applied retroactively in many cases. (See here.)
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were six criminal case grant-and-holds: one more waiting for a decision in People v. Allen (see here and here), two more on hold for People v. Eaton (see here), two more waiting for People v. Munoz (see here), and one more holding for People v. Dixon (see here).
