The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on October 11, 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
Hussein v. Driver, S240506 – Review Granted and Held – April 12, 2017
In an unpublished opinion, Hussein v. Driver (Jan. 27, 2017, A144786) 2017 WL 383387, the Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four, reversed an order awarding attorney fees in a civil action on the basis that a trespass claim had been settled, resulting in the voluntary dismissal of that cause of action with each party to bear its own fees.
Review was originally granted on April 12, 2017, but was not previously reported due to an oversight. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, S223536, which includes the following issues: (1) Does the assertion of an agreement as an affirmative defense implicate the attorney fee provision in that agreement? (2) Does the term “action” or “proceeding” in Civil Code section 1717 and in attorney fee provisions encompass the assertion of an affirmative defense? As we previously noted, the Court decided Mountain Air on July 31, holding in a 4-3 decision that assertion of an agreement as an affirmative defense does not trigger the attorney fees provision in that agreement.
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court, S243855 – Review Granted and Issues Limited – October 11, 2017
In a published opinion, Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 413, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, held the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department could not release to prosecutors the names of individual sheriff’s deputies whose personnel files contained sustained allegations of misconduct even if they were potential witnesses in pending prosecutions, without an order obtained pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, and the Pitchess statutes.
The Court directed the parties to brief the following issue: When a law enforcement agency creates an internal Brady list (see Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83; Gov. Code, § 3305.5), and a peace officer on that list is a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution, may the agency disclose to the prosecution (a) the name and identifying number of the officer and (b) that the officer may have relevant exonerating or impeaching material in his or her confidential personnel file, or can such disclosure be made only by court order on a properly filed Pitchess motion? We discussed this case yesterday in this post.
Supplemental Briefing Requested
Jameson v. Desta, S230899 – Supplemental Briefing Requested – October 11, 2017
In a published opinion, Jameson v. Desta (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 491, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held the trial court was not required to provide a court reporter for a prisoner’s personal injury lawsuit, even though the prisoner had obtained a fee waiver, where the trial court informed the parties of the unavailability of an official court reporter 10 days before the commencement of the jury trial, and there was no evidence that the prisoner attempted to “arrange for the presence of a certified shorthand reporter to serve as an official pro tempore reporter.” Additionally, it ruled that the prisoner’s failure to provide a pro tempore court reporter after the trial court informed the parties that it would not provide an official court reporter precluded the prisoner from challenging the trial court’s grant of nonsuit on the prisoner’s personal injury claims, since the record on appeal did not contain a reporter’s transcript.
The Supreme Court granted review in January 2016. This week, the Court directed supplemental briefing on the following issue: What effect, if any, does the 2015 amendment to California Rules of Court, rule 3.55(7), and the accompanying Advisory Committee Comment have on the resolution of the issue presented by this case?
Order Limiting Issues to be Decided
Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, S239777 – Issues Limited – October 11, 2017
In a published opinion, Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1207, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, held that an anti-SLAPP motion filed within 60 days of service of a third amended complaint, when no previous anti-SLAPP motion had been filed, was untimely with regard to causes of action that had appeared in the prior complaints, but was timely with respect to newly asserted claims.
The Supreme Court granted review in March. This week, the Court ordered the issue to be argued and decided limited to the following: May a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 be brought against any claim in an amended complaint or only against claims appearing for the first time in the amended complaint?
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
