The following is a summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, July 8, 2015. 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
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, S226645—Review Granted—July 8, 2015
The case presents the following issue: Are invoices for legal services sent to the County of Los Angeles by outside counsel within the scope of the attorney-client privilege and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), even with all references to attorney opinions, advice, and similar information redacted?
The ACLU of Southern California petitioned for mandamus under the CPRA to compel the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles County Counsel to release invoices from outside attorneys used in connection with nine lawsuits brought by inmates alleging violence by the Sheriff’s Department. The superior court granted the petition, but the Court of Appeal reversed in a published opinion. In Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1154, the Second District, Division Three, concluded that the invoices were confidential communications protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.
[Update and Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae letter in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel in support of the Board of Supervisor’s writ petition.]
Szanto v. Szanto, S226726—Review Granted and Held—July 8, 2015
The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in John v. Superior Court, S222726, which presents the following issue: Must a defendant who has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a prefiling order (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (a)) obtain leave of the presiding judge or justice before filing an appeal from an adverse judgment?
The defendant had previously been deemed a vexatious litigant who must obtain court approval before filing new litigation. He applied for approval to appeal an adverse judgment, but the Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five, denied his application and dismissed his appeal.
Pouzbaris v. Prime Healthcare Services-Anaheim, S226846—Review Granted and Held—July 8, 2015
The court granted review, but ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, S209836, which presents the following issues: (1) Does the one-year statute of limitations for claims under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (Code Civil Proc., § 340.5) or the two-year statute of limitations for ordinary negligence (Code Civil Proc., § 335.1) govern an action for premises liability against a hospital based on negligent maintenance of hospital equipment? (2) Did the injury in this case arise out of “professional negligence,” as that term is used in section 340.5, or ordinary negligence?
A hospital patient slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor that lacked any warning signs. She sued the hospital almost two years later. Reversing a summary judgment for the hospital in a published opinion, Pouzbaris v. Prime Healthcare Services-Anaheim, LLP (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 116, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, held that the patient’s claims were governed by the two-year limitations period for ordinary negligence, rather than the one-year period for professional negligence.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
