At its conference yesterday, the Supreme Court straight granted another case and took a few other actions of note.
It was another short-handed conference, with just six justices participating because Governor Newsom has left unfilled an over-eight-month-long vacancy on the court, a situation that might still continue for a while.
Review granted: ability to pay family law attorney fees
The court granted review in In re Marriage of Bowman. The Second District, Division Six, Court of Appeal, in a published opinion, held a superior court could consider a party’s ability to pay so as to override a marital settlement agreement’s term providing for the award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in subsequent litigation about the agreement.
Division Six affirmed the superior court’s reduction by 75 percent of what the prevailing party wife requested in attorney fees and costs. It concluded that, notwithstanding the agreement, a trial court could apply equitable principles from Family Code sections 2030 and 2032. The agreement “did not foreclose consideration of either party’s financial need or ability to pay, nor did it prohibit application of the Family Code fee statutes,” the appellate court said.
The opinion distinguished the First District, Division One, decision in Walker v. Ticor Title Co. of California (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 363 and the Second District, Division Two, opinion in In re Marriage of Sherman (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1132. There was no petition for review in Walker or Sherman.
Depublication denied: abortion clinic prohibition not enforceable
The court denied a request to depublish the Fifth District’s partially published opinion in Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association v. Valdivia. The appellate court held unenforceable a provision in covenants, codes, and restrictions adopted by a hospital district that bars abortion clinics from its medical center property.
Evaluating the provision under “the compelling interest standard,” the opinion concluded “the adoption and recording of the CC&Rs is government action that, in the circumstances of this case, interferes with the fundamental right of procreative choice and, therefore, violates a fundamental public policy expressed in [article I, section 1.1 of] the California Constitution” and that is voided by Civil Code section 53, part of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Related: Supreme Court won’t get involved at early stage of case involving recent reproductive rights legislation, The story behind a California Supreme Court abortion rights decision, “California Supreme Court turns down abortion challenge by missionary group,” Supreme Court clears way for illegal-recording prosecution of anti-abortion activists, webinar — The California Supreme Court’s Abortion Jurisprudence.
Dissenting votes: juvenile less-than-LWOP resentencing
Justices Liu and Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Nguyen. In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the denial of a resentencing petition by the defendant who was sentenced to 40 years to life for five counts of attempted premeditated murder and other crimes committed when he was 17.
The defendant sought relief under Penal Code section 1170, which generally permits resentencing of some defendants who were sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when they were minors. Unlike many others, the defendant — at least on appeal — didn’t rely on the the Fourth District, Division One, decision in People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, which held that, consistent with equal protection principles, resentencing must also be allowed for those sentenced to the “functional equivalent of life without parole.” Instead, his constitutional challenge was that there is no rational basis for the Legislature to allow resentencing for juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences but not those with non-LWOP sentences.
Division Three held the statute “survives rational basis review” because “[t]he Legislature could reasonably have decided to start its incremental approach to sentencing changes by first addressing those juvenile offenders guaranteed to die in prison absent a release mechanism.”
The Supreme Court last year granted review in People v. Munoz to decide whether a juvenile homicide offender sentenced to 50 years to life in prison is entitled to recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)(1), on the ground that the sentence is the functional equivalent of life imprisonment without parole. (See here; see also here.)
50 years to life sentences are getting the court’s attention; lesser, but still very lengthy, sentences, not so much. (See here.)
The Nguyen denial of review is “without prejudice to any relief to which defendant might be entitled after this court decides . . . Munoz.” Justices Liu and Evans have dissented in similar cases. (See recently here.)
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were three criminal case grant-and-holds: one more waiting for a decision in People v. Eaton (see here) and two more on hold for People v. Dixon (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
The court removed from its docket Doe v. Santa Cruz-Monterey-Merced Managed Medical Care Commission, which had been a grant-and-hold (see here) for the May data-breach-liability opinion in J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc. (2026) 19 Cal.5th 705 (see here).
