The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, September 21, 2016. 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
Hassell v. Bird, S235968 – Review Granted- September 21, 2016
This case presents the following issues: (1) Does an on-line publisher (Yelp) have a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a trial court orders removal of on-line content? (2) Does the statutory immunity provided by 47 U.S.C. section 230(c)(1) and (e)(3) bar a trial court from enjoining a website publisher’s actions and potentially enforcing the court’s order by way of contempt or other sanctions?
In a published decision, Hassell v. Bird (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1336, the Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four, held: (1) the on-line publisher was ‘aggrieved’ by the removal order and therefore had standing to challenge the validity of the removal order, having brought a nonstatutory motion to vacate that order; (2) the online publisher’s due process rights were not violated because of its lack of prior notice and a hearing on the removal order request; (3) the removal order did not violate the publisher’s First Amendment rights to the extent that it requires removal of the defendant’s defamatory reviews; (4) to the extent the removal order purports to apply statements other than the defendant’s defamatory reviews, it is an overbroad unconstitutional prior restraint on speech; and (5) the online publisher’s immunity from suit under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (the CDA), 47 United States Code section 230, does not extend to the removal order.
Rand Resources v. City of Carson, S235735 – Review Granted- September 21, 2016
This case presents the following issues: (1) Did plaintiffs’ causes of action alleging the breach of, and interference with, an exclusive agency agreement to negotiate the designation and development of a National Football League (NFL) stadium and related claims arise out of a public issue or an issue of public interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16? (2) Did plaintiffs’ causes of action arise out of communications made in connection with an issue under consideration by a legislative body?
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, held in a published decision, Rand Resources v. City of Carson (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1080, that “(1) city’s alleged deception about its dealings with competitor was not protected speech or petitioning activity; (2) mayor’s allegedly false denial that he knew the competitor was not protected free speech or petitioning activity; and (3) developer’s alleged attempt to usurp developer’s rights under agency agreement did not arise from protected activity under anti-SLAPP statute.”
Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church, S235412 – Review Granted- September 21, 2016
This case presents the following issue: Does one who owns, possesses, or controls premises abutting a public street have a duty to an invitee to provide safe passage across that public street if that entity directs its invitees to park in its overflow parking lot across the street?
The Court of Appeal, Third District, held in a published decision, Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 146, that the church owed a duty of care to the church visitor. It held summary judgment was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact as to: (1) whether the church’s act in directing visitors to park in the overflow lot across street was a legal cause of visitor’s injuries; and (2) whether the church failed to reasonably train and educate a parking lot attendant.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
