Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court
218 Cal. App. 4th 96
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Trial court granted class certification relying on Harris, a depublished Court of Appeal decision that limited independent analysis.
- Harris held class certification appropriate and found no exemption for insurance adjusters; Harris later depublished by the California Supreme Court and ceases to be precedential.
- Farmers sought reconsideration under CCP 1008(c) asserting a change in law due to Harris depublishing; the trial court ruled no change in law under rule 8.1125(d).
- Farmers moved for reconsideration on its own motion after depublish; plaintiffs argued Harris remained persuasive analysis despite depublishing.
- The Supreme Court depublished Harris, and the trial court denied reconsideration; Farmers petitioned for writ of mandate which the appellate court granted, directing reconsideration absent Harris.
- The court concludes depublishing Harris can constitute a change in law warranting reconsideration and grants the writ to vacate the denial and reconsider the class-certification issue absent Harris.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can depublication constitute a change of law warranting reconsideration under CCP 1008(c)? | Farmers: Harris is depublished; no change in law. | Farmers: depublication has no legal effect on change of law. | Yes; depublication can constitute a change in law warranting reconsideration. |
| Is a trial court’s denial of reconsideration reviewable via writ when based on misinterpreting a rule of court? | Writ relief appropriate for erroneous rule interpretation. | Denial of reconsideration typically not reviewable absent extraordinary facts. | Writ review appropriate where there is potential misinterpretation of governing rules. |
| Should reconsideration have been granted given Harris’s depublication? | Change in law necessitates reconsideration of the class-certification order. | No change in law; Harris absence not sufficient. | Yes; reconsideration should have been granted. |
| Does Harris depublishing affect the propriety of certifying a class based on Harris’s reasoning? | Harris provided controlling logic on exemption; still persuasive analysis. | Harris could not be cited; its analysis is depublished. | Court should reconsider without Harris’s depublished framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Superior Court, 207 Cal.App.4th 1225 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 (2012)) (depublication changed controlling law for certification analysis)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) (inferior courts must follow superior court decisions; choice between conflicting appellate decisions)
- Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2005) (court authority to reconsider independent of 1008(c))
- Phillips v. Sprint PCS, 209 Cal.App.4th 758 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2012) (change-of-law considerations in reconsideration decisions)
- International Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App.4th 784 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 (1998)) (when to review reconsideration orders under 1008(c))
- Knouse v. Nimocks, 8 Cal.2d 482 (Cal. 1937) (depublication/granting review effects on precedential value)
- People v. Clary, G013805 (1994) (Cal. Sup. Ct. (depublished)) (depublished authority affected by depublication)
- Valdez v. Himmelfarb, 144 Cal.App.4th 1261 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 (2006)) (change in law supporting reconsideration)
- Blake v. Ecker, 93 Cal.App.4th 728 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 (2001)) (change in law supporting reconsideration)