The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Tuesday, November 24, 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
Connor v. First Student, S229428—Review Granted—November 24, 2015
The issue is whether the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) (Civ. Code, § 1786 et seq.) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to background checks conducted on a company’s employees, because persons and entities subject to both that Act and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA) (Civ. Code, § 1785 et seq.) cannot determine which statute applies.
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, reversed the lower court’s summary judgment and held in a published decision, Connor v. First Student Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 526, that the ICRAA is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to information that relates to both character and creditworthiness because there is nothing in either the ICRAA or the CCRAA that precludes application of both acts to such information.
McMillin Albany v. Superior Court (Van Tassell), S229762—Review Granted—November 24, 2015
This case presents the following issue: Does the Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code § 895 et seq.) preclude a homeowner from bringing common law causes of action for defective conditions that resulted in physical damage to the home?
The Court of Appeal, Fifth District, granted petitioners’ writ of mandate in a published opinion, McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, compelling the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to stay litigation until real parties complied with the statutory nonadversarial prelitigation procedures of the “Right to Repair Act,” which applies to construction defect litigation involving certain residential construction and entered a new order granting the stay as requested because real parties did not comply with the requirements of Chapter 4 in accommodating McMillin’s absolute right to attempt repairs.
Scher v. Burke, S230104—Review Granted—November 24, 2015
The case presents the following issue: Does Civil Code section 1009 preclude non-recreational use of noncoastal private property from ripening into an implied dedication of a public road?
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, held in a published decision, Scher v. Burke (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 381, that Civil Code section 1009 bars all use of non-coastal private real property, not simply recreational use of such property, from ever ripening into an implied dedication to the public after the effective date of that statute. Thus, the trial court erred in considering evidence about use of the subject roads after March 4, 1972 to support its finding that the roads were impliedly dedicated to public use.
Moose v. Superior Court (D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Company), S230342—Review Granted and Held—November 24, 2015
The Supreme Court granted review in this case after the Court of Appeal summarily denied a writ petition. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court, S229762 (see Cal. rules of Court, rule 8.524 (c)), or pending further order of the court. McMillin presents the following issue: Does the Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code § 895 et seq.) preclude a homeowner from bringing common law causes of action for defective conditions that resulted in physical damage to the home?
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
