[UPDATED THROUGH OCTOBER 16, 2013]
Can an Insurer Seek Reimbursement from Independent Counsel? After the Court of Appeal affirmed judgment, the Court granted review on 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? Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C., S211645 (opinon below A133750, formerly 216 Cal.App.4th 1444). Review was granted 9/18/13.
Can a Homeowner Recover Attorney’s Fees Against an HOA When Its Governing Documents Are Found To Be Deficient? The Court limited review to the following issue: Is a prevailing homeowner entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code § 1354 in an action by a homeowners association to enforce its governing documents as those of a common interest development when the homeowner prevailed because it was later determined that the subdivision was not such a development and its governing documents had not been properly reenacted? Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp, S211596 (B236015, nonpublished opinion). Review was granted 8/28/13.
Do the Enforcement of Judgments Statutes Govern An Award For Fees And Costs Under The Elder Abuse Act? The Court granted review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a motion for post-judgment attorney fees and costs, on the following issue: Is a trial court award of statutorily-mandated fees and costs incurred on appeal subject to the Enforcement of Judgments Statutes (CCP § 685.040, et seq.) if the statutory authority underlying the award is the Elder Abuse Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600, et seq.)? Conservatorship of McQueen, S209376 (opinon below A134337, nonpublished opinion). Review was granted 5/15/13.
Does a Victory on Procedural Grounds Support Attorney Fees under Civil Code § 1717? After the Court of Appeal affirmed an award of attorney fees the Court granted review on the following issue: Is a party who obtains the dismissal of a contract action entirely on procedural grounds entitled to an award of attorney fees under Civil Code § 1717 as the prevailing party in an action on a contract? Kandy Kiss of California, Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., S206354 (opinion below B234541, formerly 209 Cal.App.4th 604). Review was granted on 1/16/13.
Should An Undocumented Immigrant, Otherwise Qualified, Be Admitted to the State Bar? This case includes the following issues: (1) Does 8 U.S.C. §1621(c) apply and preclude this court’s admission of an undocumented immigrant to the State Bar of California? Does any other statute, regulation, or authority preclude the admission? (2) Is there any state legislation that provides — as specifically authorized by 8 U.S.C. §1621(d) — that undocumented immigrants are eligible for professional licenses in fields such as law, medicine, or other professions, and, if not, what significance, if any, should be given to the absence of such legislation? (3) Does the issuance of a license to practice law impliedly represent that the licensee may be legally employed as an attorney? (4) If licensed, what are the legal and public policy limitations, if any, on an undocumented immigrant’s ability to practice law? (5) What, if any, other public policy concerns arise with a grant of this application? In re Garcia on Admission, S202512. This is an original proceeding. Update 8/7/13: Oral argument scheduled for 9/4/13. The briefs are here. Update 9/4/13: Case argued and submitted. Update 10/16/13: Submission of case is vacated in light of passage of AB 1024. The parties are requested, and amicus invited, to file supplemental briefs addressing the effect of the new legislation. The case is set to be resubmitted on 1/2/14.
Under What Conditions Must the State Bar Disclose Collected Information?
The court limited review to the following issues: (1) What ground, if any, exists for
finding that the information sought by plaintiffs is information that is subject to public disclosure? (2) What is the effect, if any, of the representation of confidentiality made by the State Bar to the individuals from whom the information was collected? (3) Does the form in which the requested information is regularly maintained affect whether the State Bar must provide the requested information? Sander v. State Bar of California, S194951 (opinion below A128647, formerly 196 Cal.App.4th 614), review granted 8/25/11. Update 8/28/13: Oral argument scheduled for 10/9/13. The briefs are here. Update 10/9/13: Case argued and submitted.