At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, actions of note included:
- Agreement to arbitrate. The court granted review in Logan v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC to resolve a conflict whether a person designated in an advance health care directive as someone’s health care agent and attorney-in-fact is authorized to sign an arbitration agreement binding on the designator. The published opinion of the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal said “no” in a case where a designatee-nephew signed both an arbitration agreement and an agreement admitting his designator-uncle to a skilled nursing facility. It disagreed with the Second District, Division Five, opinion in Garrison v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 253. The Fourth District, Division Three, agreed with Garrison in Hogan v. Country Villa Health Services (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 259, but the Sixth District in Young v. Horizon West, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1122 did not. The Supreme Court denied review in Garrison with two justices recording votes to hear the case. There was no petition for review in Hogan or Young.
- PAGA intervention. After granting relief to file a petition for review that was submitted 17 days late (related: Getting relief for a late petition for review might not be a hopeless cause; and see here), the court granted-and-held in Porras v. Chipotle Services, LLC, which will now wait for a decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. In Turrieta, the court limited the issue to: “Does a plaintiff in a representative action filed under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq.) (PAGA) have the right to intervene, or object to, or move to vacate, a judgment in a related action that purports to settle the claims that plaintiff has brought on behalf of the State?” The Fifth District’s unpublished opinion in Porras affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment in a related PAGA action.
- Creative expression evidence. The court granted review in People v. Wilson and sent the case back to the Third District to reconsider in light of Assembly Bill 2799, enacted in September with the Legislature’s stated purpose “to provide a framework by which courts can ensure that the use of an accused person’s creative expression will not be used to introduce stereotypes or activate bias against the defendant, nor as character or propensity evidence; and to recognize that the use of rap lyrics and other creative expression as circumstantial evidence of motive or intent is not a sufficient justification to overcome substantial evidence that the introduction of rap lyrics creates a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.” The Third District’s unpublished opinion affirmed a murder conviction, finding no error in the admission of a rap video made by the defendant because “the rap lyrics were used specifically as evidence of defendant’s premeditation and deliberation.” The Supreme Court made a similar grant-and-transfer order three weeks ago. (See here.)
- Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were six criminal case grant-and-holds: three more waiting for People v. Lynch (see here), one more holding for People v. Faial (see here), one holding for People v. Salazar (see here), and one waiting for People v. Rojas (see here).
- Grant-and-hold disposals. The court shed 45 criminal case grant-and-holds. Eighteen were holding for both the August decision in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 and last year’s decision in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — 11 were sent back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Strong and Lewis, one is to be reconsidered in light of just Strong, one will be reconsidered in light of only Lewis, and review was dismissed in the other five. Twelve were waiting just for the Strong opinion — five will be reconsidered in light of Strong, one will be reconsidered in light of Strong and People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 892, and review was dismissed in six. Five were on hold for the August decision in People v. Aguayo (2022) 13 Cal.5th 974 — one is to be reconsidered in light of Aguayo and the court dismissed review in four. Ten were waiting for People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, also decided in August — nine were returned for reconsideration in light of Renteria and Assembly Bill 333, and one will be reconsidered in light of Renteria, AB 333, and Assembly Bill 518.