The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on June 14, 2017. 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
De La Torre v. Caschcall, S241434 – Request to Answer Certified Question of State Law Granted – June 14, 2017
The Supreme Court agreed to answer the following question of state law certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in De La Torre v. CashCall (April 21, 2017, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-03174-MEJ Nos. 14-17571, 15-15042): Finance Code section 22303 governs the interest rate on consumer loans of $2,500 or more but provides no interest rate limitations on such loans. Accordingly, can the interest rate on such loans be unconscionable in violation of section 22302 and thus be the predicate for a private cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.?
Dr. Leevil v. Westlake Health Care Center, S241324 – Review Granted; Issues Limited
The Supreme Court limited review to this issue: Does Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a require a purchaser of real property at a foreclosure sale to perfect title before serving a three-day notice to quit on the occupant of the property?
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six, held in a published decision, Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 450, that: (1) a lease with automatic and permissible subordination clauses was subordinate to a deed of trust, (2) a notice to quit served after a purchaser buys property but before recording title to it is not premature, and (3) Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a does not require a purchaser at a foreclosure sale to perfect its title in the property before serving the occupants with a notice to quit.
McClain v. Sav-On Drugs, S241471 – Review Granted – June 14, 2017
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two, held in a published decision, McClain v. Sav-on Drugs (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 684, that: (1) no direct cause of action was available to customers who brought a class action against retail pharmacies and the Board of Equalization to compel the pharmacies to seek a refund of sales tax reimbursements paid by the customers for skin puncture lancets and test strips and (2) the failure to provide for such a direct right of action did not violate due process.
K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, S241057– Review Granted– June 14, 2017
In an unpublished opinion, K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (Feb. 23, 2017 BC505356), the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal from an order requiring her attorney to pay attorney fees and costs as a discovery sanction. The court concluded the plaintiff was not aggrieved and thus had no standing to appeal because she was not sanctioned and her attorney had not appealed.
Spear Education v. Superior Court (CAD-RAY), S241197–Review Granted and Held– June 14, 2017
The Supreme Court granted review and deferred further action pending finality of the court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 783, which is currently awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on certiorari. That case presents the following question: “Whether a plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to a defendant’s forum activities when there is no causal link between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claims – that is, where the plaintiff’s claims would be exactly the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.”
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
Jane Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Association, Inc., S241038–Review Denied [Chin, J., voting for review] – June 14, 2017
In this case, a minor was sexually abused by her former soccer coach. The question presented is whether the defendants had a duty to protect the plaintiff from criminal conduct by a third party. In a published opinion — Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Association, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1118 — the Sixth District Court of Appeal held there was a duty to conduct criminal background checks of all adults who would have contact with children involved in defendant’s programs.
Martinez v. County of Mendocino, S241398–Review Denied [Chin, J., voting for review]–June 14, 2017
The issue in this case was the legality of a program in which criminal defendants charged with marijuana-related felonies are offered the opportunity to reduce their charges in exchange for a set payment determined by the amount of marijuana seized. In an unpublished opinion, Martinez v. County of Mendocino (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 10, 2017, No. A146710) the Court of Appeal, First District, Division One, did not resolve the issue because: (1) it held the plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because he failed to demonstrate that the balance of harm favored him; and (2) the plaintiff lacked standing to seek disgorgement of payments made in criminal cases.
Depublished
None.
