The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on May 17, 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
Samara v. Matar, S240918 – Review Granted – May 17, 2017
In a published decision, Samara v. Matar (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 796, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven, reversed the lower court’s judgment that a patient’s claim against her doctor’s employer for vicarious liability was barred by claim preclusion. In a prior appellate decision in the same action, the court had ruled the statute of limitations barred the patient’s malpractice claim against her doctor only, but declined to decide the issue of causation. Here, the Court of Appeal held that claim preclusion did not apply to the claim against the employer because the patient had sued the doctor and the employer in a single action and therefore the patient did not file successive lawsuits. It also ruled that issue preclusion did not apply because the court expressly did not reach the issue of causation in the prior decision and thus the court had not decided if the doctor had committed malpractice.
This case includes the following issue: When a trial court grants a summary judgment motion on two alternative grounds, and the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment on only one ground and expressly declines to address the second, does the affirmed judgment have preclusive effect as to the second ground?
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc., S240649 – Request to Answer Certified Question Granted – May 17, 2017
In Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 851 F.3d 950, the Ninth Circuit certified questions to the Supreme Court in a pending copyright dispute over public performance rights. The Supreme Court granted the Ninth Circuit’s request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548.
The questions presented are: “1. Under section 980(a)(2) of the California Civil Code, do copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings that were sold to the public before 1982 possess an exclusive right of public performance? 2. If not, does California’s common law of property or tort otherwise grant copyright owners of pre- 1972 sound recordings an exclusive right of public performance?”
Atascadero Glass, Inc. v. David A. Bush, Inc., S240818 – Review Granted and Held – May 17, 2017
In an unpublished decision, Atascadero Glass, Inc. v. David A. Bush, Inc. (Feb. 14, 2017, F071426) 2017 WL 589111, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s ruling that a contractor for a school construction project had a legal right to withhold retention payments owed to a subcontractor until the subcontractor’s claim for extra work was resolved. The Court of Appeal held that Public Construction Code section 7107, subdivision(e), which applies to public works of improvement, did not permit withholding of retention payments. However, the court recognized a split existed among the courts of appeal on this issue.
The Supreme Court ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., S231549, which presents the following issue: May a contractor withhold retention payments when there is a good faith dispute of any kind between the contractor and a subcontractor, or only when the dispute relates to the retention itself?
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
