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, February 17, 2016. 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
Gehron v. Bank of America, S231447—Review Granted and Held—February 17, 2016.
The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., S218973, which presents the following issue: In an action for wrongful foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a home loan, does the borrower have standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void?
After plaintiffs defaulted on a home mortgage, foreclosure proceedings were instituted and the property was sold at a trustee’s sale. Plaintiffs later filed suit against the foreclosing entities, the parties to the original loan transactions, and the parties to the subsequent foreclosure sale, asserting several causes of action. The trial court sustained defendants’ without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
Gehron v. Nicholas, S231459—Review Granted and Held—February 17, 2016.
This is a companion case to Gehron v. Bank or America, above. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., S218973, which presents the following issue: In an action for wrongful foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a home loan, does the borrower have standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void?
Plaintiffs are property owners who defaulted on a real estate loan. The gravamen of their action is that defects in the securitization or assignment of the loan documents and in the substitution of trustee deprived defendants of the authority to foreclose. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal Fourth District, Division Two, affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
Stevens v. W.C.A.B. (Outspoken Enterprise), S230996—Petition Denied—February 17, 2016.
The Court of Appeal First District, Division One, held in a published opinion, Stevens v. W.C.A.B. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1074, that an employer in a workers’ compensation proceeding may appeal the result of the utilization review (UR) process to the independent medical review (IMR) board. The court held that the IMR process did not violate the due process provisions of the California Constitution, the IMR process was not unconstitutional, and the IMR process did not violate the federal due process clause. Justice Cuellar voted to grant review.
Depublished
None.
