These Are The Two Civil Cases With Fee Issues Currently Pending Before The State Supreme Court; Plus We Update Our Year End 2022 Review Of K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. Decision.
-
- On October 27, 2022, Shanna did a nice post on a lengthy discovery sanctions case. That matter was accepted for review and presents the following issues for resolution--City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, S277211. (B310118; 84 Cal.App.5th 466; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC574690.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is a court’s authority to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process limited to circumstances expressly delineated in a method-specific provision of the Civil Discovery Act, or do courts have independent authority to impose monetary sanctions for such discovery misconduct, including under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030?
- On January 16, 2023, we indicated that review had been granted in an arbitration unconscionability opinion which presented the follow issue: Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., S273802. (B309408; 75 Cal.App.5th 365; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20STCV25987.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. This case includes the following issues: Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that a provision of an arbitration agreement allowing for recovery of interim attorney’s fees after a successful motion to compel arbitration, was so substantively unconscionable that it rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable?
- In our year end 2022 review, we noted that K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., 85 Cal.App.5th 717 (2022) had a petition for review pending for determination with the California Supreme Court. We can now report that a settlement was reached, and an order was entered on February 15, 2023 granting petitioner’s unopposed request to withdraw the petition for review. Does this impact publication of the decision? We see no clear answer, but likely it does not because CRC 8.526 provides that the supreme court’s dismissal of a petition for review does not impact its publication unless the high court orders otherwise. The docket does not reflect that the opinion was depublished, with the opinion strongly indicating that a CCP § 998 offeror should attach a copy of a desired settlement agreement so the offeree is clear on the terms of the 998 offer.
Comments