The Supreme Court didn’t straight grant any cases at its conference yesterday, but it did depublish three Court of Appeal opinions. Here’s a summary of those actions and some others.
New-trial-motion-procedure conflict left unresolved
At the parties’ request after a settlement, the court dismissed review in TRC Operating Company v. Chevron USA. When it granted review, the court limited the issue to, “Does Code of Civil Procedure section 660 preclude remand for further proceedings in the trial court on a motion for new trial?” (Link added.) The Court of Appeal had reversed a new trial order and reinstated a $120,000,000 judgment against Chevron, disagreeing with a different Court of Appeal opinion. (More about the case here.)
Horvitz & Levy represented Chevron in the Court of Appeal and filed the successful petition for review.
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and Justice Carol Corrigan were recused from the dismissal decision.
Charity fraud statute/statewide injunction depublication
The court denied the Attorney General’s petition for review in Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc. v. Bonta (also here, here, and here), but granted his request to depublish the Second District, Division Seven, opinion.
Division Seven reversed a permanent injunction barring the AG from enforcing statutory provisions the superior court ruled to be unconstitutional prior restraints. Under the legislation, the AG had issued cease and desist orders against, and had imposed substantial fines on, two charities that he found had made misleading statements in its donation solicitations.
The AG disagreed with, but didn’t challenge on appeal, the constitutional ruling. It did, however, object to the injunction, which the charities hadn’t asked for until the time the parties and the court were discussing the form of the judgment. The appellate court held “the trial court abused its discretion when it assumed a permanent injunction should be granted as a matter of course” and it “remand[ed] for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether [the charities] can plead and prove permanent injunctions are warranted.”
The superior court had also reformed a statutory term to preserve its constitutionality and Division Seven rejected a rule “that injunctions or orders reforming a statute entered by a trial court cannot reach nonparties when the government is involved.” In doing so, and in a brief footnote, it disagreed with the Second District, Division Two, decision in Helene Curtis, Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Bd. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 124, review denied.
Summary judgment depublication
The court also depublished the opinion in, and denied review of, Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. Because the plaintiff had not filed an opposition to a defense summary judgment motion, the Second District, Division Five, affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a case alleging, among other things, sexual harassment and retaliation.
Disagreeing with the Fourth District, Division Two, decision in Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, Division Five held, “if a plaintiff opposing summary judgment fails to file a separate statement, and the trial court reviews the moving papers and concludes the motion is not deficient on its face, it has discretion under [Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c,] subdivision (b)(3) to deny the motion, without first undertaking a detailed analysis of the supporting evidence to determine if a prima facie showing has been made as to one or more of the elements of each claim.”
The Supreme Court denied review in Thatcher.
Murder resentencing depublication
The court denied review in People v. Hill, but it depublished the opinion of the First District, Division Two, in another SB 1437 case. The defendant unsuccessfully claimed he was entitled to resentencing on two counts of attempted premeditated murder, the shootings in question having been committed by a person to whom the defendant had handed a gun. He had previously been convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder, but the murder conviction was reversed on appeal, after which he pleaded no contest to a second attempted murder charge.
Racial Justice Act dissenting votes
Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Tiebout. The Fourth District, Division One, unpublished opinion rejected the defendant’s claim of a California Racial Justice Act (here and here) violation when the trial court stated at sentencing that the defendant, “a black man, was ‘essentially living, what I’ll refer to as the gangster life.’ ”
Division One held the RJA claim was forfeited by not having been raised in the trial court. The appellate court relied on the First District, Division Three, opinion in People v. Lashon (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 804, review denied (see here and here). It then concluded the defendant had not stated a claim on appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel by his attorney’s failure to raise the RJA objection in the trial court. “[W]hile we do not dispute th[e] possibility that the term ‘gangster’ may be suggestive of race, or used in a racially charged manner,” the court said, “in certain contexts, the term itself appears to be race neutral,” and thus “we cannot say there is no possible satisfactory explanation for [defendant’s] trial counsel’s failure to bring a motion under the RJA.”
Racial Justice Act habeas denials
In detailed orders, the court denied pro per habeas corpus petitions in In re Allen and In re Johnson (also here), which sought relief under the California Racial Justice Act (here and here) on various grounds.
However, concerning the petitioners’ discovery requests, the denials were “without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner[s] might be entitled after this court decides In re Montgomery” (link added), which is expected to address whether a petitioner must allege a prima facie case for relief under the RJA before the trial court can consider a discovery request for disclosure of evidence under the RJA. (See here.)
The court has made similar Montgomery-without-prejudice denials in the past. (See, e.g., here and here.)
Pardon recommendation
The court granted Governor Gavin Newsom’s May request for a constitutionally required recommendation that allows him to pardon Jeffrey Foy for a 1998 conviction of possession of a controlled substance for sale and a 1999 conviction of possession of a firearm as a felon.
Newsom has a nearly perfect clemency record: he withdrew one request before a ruling, but the court — applying a deferential standard (see here and here) — has approved all 72 of his other requests (not counting 10 that are still pending (see here and here)). That’s better than former Governor Jerry Brown, who had the court without explanation block 10 intended clemency grants. The denial of a request implies that a clemency grant would be an abuse of power.
A Cincinnati Reds loss
The court denied review in The Cincinnati Reds v. WCAB after the Fourth District, Division Three, summarily denied a petition for writ of review challenging a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The Board concluded there was personal jurisdiction over the baseball team for a claim by Scott Sellner for injury he suffered playing in the Reds’ farm system from 1987 to 1991.
Although Sellner “never played in California, was not directed to return to California during the off-season or for any required training, and was not directed to treat and rehabilitate in California for a past 1987 injury,” the Board ruled “the fact that applicant, a California resident, was recruited by a local scout for the Reds in California, negotiated and signed several contracts with the Reds in California, and the Reds made travel arrangements for applicant from California, provide sufficient minimum contacts for California to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Reds.”
It’s not the Reds first loss on the jurisdictional issue. (See here.)
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were 10 criminal case grant-and-holds: one more waiting for a decision in People v. Mitchell (see here and here); two on hold for People v. Cannon (see here), which was argued last month; one more waiting for People v. Fletcher (see here), which was argued two weeks ago; three more holding for In re Hernandez (see here and here); and three more waiting for People v. Rhodius (see here), which was argued in April.
Grant-and-hold disposition (see here)
The court dismissed review in one case that had been waiting for the prejudicial-sentencing-error decision in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (see here) and the resentencing decision in People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 (see here).
