At its conference yesterday, another with just six justices (see here), there was one straight grant, a dissenting statement, a bunch more dissenting votes, and other actions of note, some of which will be reported in a second part of this week’s conference recap.
Racial Justice Act dissenting statement
See: Another dissenting statement in a Racial Justice Act/systemic racism case.
Review granted: waiving tenants’ litigation costs recovery
The court granted tenants’ petition for review in Gogal v. Deng and limited the issues to: “(1) Are parties to a pre-litigation contract prohibited from waiving their rights to recover costs as prevailing parties in litigation? (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1032; Civ. Code, § 3513.) (2) Does Civil Code section 1953 void an agreement by a lessee to waive or modify the right to recover such costs?” In a published opinion, the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal, held that tenants who prevailed in a retaliatory eviction action and recovered a money judgment were bound by a lease provision stating, “In any action or proceeding arising out of this agreement, the prevailing party between landlord and tenant shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs, collectively not to exceed $1,000.”
Division One concluded that section 1032 — which provides, “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding” — “merely creates a default rule and contemplates that parties may agree to deal with litigation costs in alternative ways that best suit their individual interests.” The opinion doesn’t mention section 1953, a statute declaring “void as contrary to public policy” any lease term “by which the lessee agrees to modify or waive” various rights, including “[h]is procedural rights in litigation in any action involving his rights and obligations as a tenant.”
Workers’ compensation grant-and-hold
City of Salinas v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board is another grant-and-hold for Mayor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (see here). The Mayor issues, as summarized by court staff (see here), are: “(1) May the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board apply equitable tolling to act upon a petition for reconsideration beyond the 60-day period provided in Labor Code section 5909, when the Appeals Board did not receive the petition for reconsideration until after the 60-day period has elapsed? (2) Did the Court of Appeal act in excess of its jurisdiction in granting relief under traditional mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), where petitioner did not file a timely petition for writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5909?”
The Sixth District’s published opinion held that the WCAB “acted in excess of its jurisdiction . . . when it granted a petition for reconsideration of a decision issued more than 60 days earlier,” but that “the 60-day timeframe for the grant or denial of a petition for reconsideration does not implicate the Board’s fundamental jurisdiction, allowing for the possibility of equitable tolling in a narrow class of cases.”
Three Strikes resentencing grant-and-transfer
The court granted review in People v. Wasson and sent the case back to the Third District for reconsideration in light of last month’s Three Strikes resentencing decision in People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838 (see here). In a brief unpublished opinion, the Third District held the defendant had waived the Guevara issue by expressly not raising it in the trial court.
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were four criminal case grant-and-holds this week: two more waiting for a decision in People v. Eaton (see here), one more holding for People v. Espino (see here), and one more on hold for People v. Munoz (see here and here). The Munoz grant-and-hold — in People v. Reyna — had review granted on the court’s own motion; the Los Angeles district attorney requested that action after the Attorney General conceded error in the Court of Appeal (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
The court sent back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration seven cases that had been grant-and-holds for the August arbitration decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310 (see here): Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (see here), Costa-Fleeson v. Americor Funding (see here), Doe v. Lawyers for Employee and Consumer Rights (see here), Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises (see here), Solis v. Sohnen Enterprises (see here), Keeton v. Tesla, Inc. (see here), and Sanders v. Superior Court (see here).
In Hohenshelt, the court disapproved published opinions in Keeton, Colon-Perez, Sanders, and Hernandez. The transfer orders also vacate and thus depublish those opinions.
