The following is a summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, July 22, 2015. 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
California Building Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., S226753—Review Granted—July 22, 2015
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does Water Code section 181 permit the State Water Resources Control Board to approve its annual fee under the waste discharge permit program by a majority of the quorum? (2) Does Proposition 26 apply to the waste discharge permit program fee? (3) Does the Board have the initial burden of demonstrating the validity of its fee? (4) Is the fee, which is based on balancing the fees and costs of the waste discharge permit program, an invalid tax unless it separately balances the fees and costs of each of the eight program areas within the program?
In a published decision, California Building Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1430, the First District, Division Two, Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of an administrative mandate petition filed by the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), a petition that challenged the increase by the State Water Resources Control Board of an annual waste discharge permit fee. The court agreed with the Board that two of the three sitting board members could approve the increase even though there were two vacancies on the five-member board, that the fee increase was not excessive, that Proposition 26 did not require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to approve the fee increase, and that the Board did not have the initial burden of showing the fee was valid.
Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Com., S226538—Review Granted—July 22, 2015
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Under Article 1, section 2, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution, can the California Table Grape Commission compel unwilling produce growers to contribute for generic commercial advertising?
In a published opinion, Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Com. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 967, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the California Table Grape Commission. Grape producers challenged the constitutionality of assessments imposed on all shipments of California table grapes, assessments that fund advertising, marketing, education, research, and government relations efforts to aid the producers. The Court of Appeal held that the Commission’s promotional activities constituted government speech and that the assessments survive both intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review and are a valid exercise of the state’s police power.
BNSF Railway Co. v. Superior Court, S226284—Review Granted and Held—July 22, 2015
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, S221038, which presents the following issues: (1) Did the plaintiffs in this action who are not residents of California establish specific jurisdiction over their claims against the nonresident pharmaceutical drug manufacturer? (2) Does general jurisdiction exist in light of Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. __ [134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624]?
In a published opinion, BNSF Railway Co. v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 591, the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal granted a writ petition and ordered the trial court to quash service of process for lack of general personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs in the underlying asbestos exposure case were the survivors of a deceased employee who had worked in Kansas for a Texas-based railway company incorporated in Delaware. The Court of Appeal concluded that general jurisdiction was lacking because, although the company transacted substantial business in California, such business was a relatively small portion of its overall operations.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.