The Supreme Court straight granted one case at yesterday’s conference, a double one.
It was one more short-handed conference, with just six justices participating, because Governor Newsom has left unfilled a more-than-nine-month-long vacancy (nine months!) on the court, a situation that might still continue for a while. By our count, yesterday’s was the 30th short-handed conference since Justice Jenkins’s October 2025 retirement.
This is Part I of the conference recap. Part II, covering some additional denials of review, will come later.
LWOP commutation recommended
See: Supreme Court OKs another LWOP commutation.
Review granted: arbitrator ruling on standing
The court agreed to hear NNN Capital Fund I, LLC v. Mikles and it limited the issue to: “When the question of whether a party has standing to arbitrate a dispute has been submitted to an arbitrator for decision, what deference, if any, must a court give to the arbitrator’s resolution of this issue?”
The Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 belatedly published opinion, overturned an arbitration award and directed the superior court, which had sent the case to arbitration, to “make factual findings regarding whether [two people] had standing to bring the action on respondent’s behalf.” Citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2(a)(4), the majority said, “An arbitrator exceeds his powers when he acts without subject matter jurisdiction.” The dissent, on the other hand, said the remand was inappropriate because, “[u]nder the clear rule enunciated by our Supreme Court in Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, standing is a factual matter to be decided by the arbitrator and is not subject to judicial review.”
Review denied: brief with false AI citations
The court denied review in Bixler v. Church of Scientology International, an appeal from the denial of anti-SLAPP motions. The first of two issues raised in the petition for review (filed by Horvitz & Levy) was, “Does a court have discretion to ignore an attorney’s admitted abuse of artificial intelligence that violated the California Rules of Court, or is the court required to resolve whether to sanction that attorney and explain the reasoning for its decision?” (The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel filed an amicus letter in support of the petition.)
The Second District, Division Five, 2-1 unpublished opinion resolved the appeal’s merits without addressing the sanctions issue.
In January, the court granted review in Kjoller v. Superior Court and returned the case to the Third District Court of Appeal, which had summarily denied a motion to issue an order to show cause why that court should not impose sanctions for a district attorney’s appellate filing allegedly containing AI-infected errors. (See here.)
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were seven criminal case grant-and-holds: one more waiting for a decision in People v. Hernandez (see here, here, and here), which was decided yesterday; one more holding for People v. Allen (see here and here); four more waiting for People v. Eaton (see here); and one more on hold for People v. Munoz (see here and here).
