(1) Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court of Orange County (Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Real Party in Interest), S205889
Decision below reported at 208 Cal.App.4th 1506. This case presents the following issue: Are the limitations on assignment of third party liability insurance policy benefits recognized in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934 inconsistent with the provisions of Insurance Code section 520?
(2) City of San Diego et al. v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, S199557
Decision below reported at 201 Cal.App.4th 1134. This case includes the following issue: Does a state agency that may have an obligation to make “fair-share” payments for the mitigation of off-site impacts of a proposed project satisfy its duty to mitigate under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) by stating that it has sought funding from the Legislature to pay for such mitigation and that, if the requested funds are not appropriated, it may proceed with the project on the ground that mitigation is infeasible?
(3) DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (Wade), S218597
Decision below reported at 225 Cal.App.4th 1115. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Can parties who are jointly and severally liable on an obligation be sued in separate actions? (2) Does the opinion of the Court of Appeal in this case conflict with the opinion of this court in Williams v. Reed (1957) 48 Cal.2d 57?
(4) In re the Estate of Irving Duke, S199435
Decision below reported at 201 Cal.App.4th 599. This case presents the following issue: Should the “four corners” rule (see Estate of Barnes (1965) 63 Cal.2d 580) be reconsidered in order to permit drafting errors in a will to be reformed consistent with clear and convincing extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s intent?
(5) Lee (Nancy F.) v. Hanley (William B.), S220775
Decision below reported at 227 Cal.App.4th 1295. This case presents the following issue: Does the one-year statute of limitations for actions against attorneys set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 apply to a former client’s claim against an attorney for reimbursement of unearned attorney fees advanced in connection with a lawsuit?
(6) People v. Jackson (Bailey), S139103 [Automatic Appeal]
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
(7) People v. Johnson (Timothy Wayne), S219454 and People v. Machado (Oscar), S219819
Decisions below reported at 226 Cal.App.4th 620 and 226 Cal.App.4th 1376a. Johnson presents the following issue: For the purpose of determining eligibility for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012) [Pen. Code, § 1170.126]), is an offense considered a serious or violent felony if it was not defined as a serious or violent felony on the date the offense was committed but was defined as a serious or violent felony on the effective date of the Act? Machado presents the following issue: Is an inmate serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment under the Three Strikes Law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12), which was imposed for a conviction of an offense that is not a serious or violent felony, eligible for resentencing on that conviction under the Three Strikes Reform Act if the inmate is also serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment under the Three Strikes Law for a conviction of an offense that is a serious or violent felony?
(8) Poole (Steve) et al. v. Orange County Fire Authority (and consolidated case), S215300
Decision below reported at 221 Cal.App.4th 155. This case presents the following issue: Did a daily log about firefighters, which was maintained by a supervisor and used by the supervisor to prepare annual performance evaluations, qualify under the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3250 et seq.) as a personnel file and/or as a file used for personnel purposes?
(9) Cordova (Antonio) et al. v. City of Los Angeles, S208130
Decision below reported at 212 Cal.App.4th 243. The court limited review to the following issue: May a government entity be held liable if a dangerous condition of public property existed and caused the injuries plaintiffs suffered in an accident, but did not cause the third party conduct that led to the accident?
(10) People v. Blackburn (Bruce Lee), S211078
Decision below reported at 215 Cal.App.4th 809. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order extending a commitment as a mentally disordered offender. The court limited review to the following issue: Did the trial court prejudicially err by failing to advise defendant of his right to jury trial and obtain a personal waiver of that right?
(11) People v. Tran (Dawn Quang), S211329
Decision below reported at 216 Cal.App.4th 102. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order extending a commitment after a judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity. The court limited review to the following issues: Did the trial court prejudicially err by failing to advise defendant of his right to jury trial and obtain a personal waiver of that right, and does the Court of Appeal have authority to declare a rule of procedure for the trial courts?
(12) People v. Brown (Shauntrel Ray), S218993
Decision below reported at 226 Cal.App.4th 142. This case presents the following issues: (1) Was defendant detained when a deputy sheriff stopped his patrol car immediately behind defendant’s parked vehicle and activated the patrol car’s emergency lights? (2) In the alternative, did the deputy have reasonable suspicion to detain defendant?
(13) J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company et al., S211645
Decision below reported at 216 Cal.App.4th 1444. This case presents the following issue: After an insured has secured a judgment requiring an insurer to provide independent counsel to the insured (see San Diego Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358), can the insurer seek reimbursement of defense fees and costs it considers unreasonable and unnecessary by pursuing a reimbursement action against independent counsel or can the insurer seek reimbursement only from its insured?
(14) People v. Superior Court of San Francisco County (Daryl Lee Johnson, Real Party in Interest) (and consolidated case), S221296
Decision below reported at 228 Cal.App.4th 1046. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the prosecution have a duty to review peace officer personnel files to locate material that must be disclosed to the defense under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83? (2) Does the prosecution have a right to access those files absent a motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531? (3) Must the prosecution file a Pitchess motion in order to disclose such Brady material to the defense?
(15) People v. Nguyen (Lam Thanh), S076340 [Automatic Appeal]
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
(16) People v. Seumanu (Ropati), S093803 [Automatic Appeal] (Perluss, J., assigned justice pro tempore; Corrigan, J., not participating)This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.