CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA (2021)

Supreme Court of California.2021-07-28No. S269212

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court granted the requests for pro hac vice counsel and the petition for review, and denied the request for depublication of the Court of Appeal opinion.

The California Supreme Court granted several procedural requests in this case involving the California Medical Association and Aetna Health of California. The court approved applications for attorneys to appear as counsel pro hac vice and granted a petition for review of a Court of Appeal decision. The court also issued guidance on how the underlying Court of Appeal opinion may be cited during the review process, permitting its use not only for persuasive purposes but also for the limited function of documenting conflicts in legal authority that trial courts may rely upon when exercising discretion under established case law. However, the court declined to order that the Court of Appeal's published opinion be removed from publication.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Admission of out-of-state counsel to appear pro hac vice
Standard for Supreme Court review of Court of Appeal decisions
Publication status and citability of Court of Appeal opinions pending Supreme Court review
Conflict in legal authority among appellate decisions

Procedural posture

The case was before the California Supreme Court on a petition for review of a published Court of Appeal decision.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

The requests to appear as counsel pro hac vice are granted.

The petition for review is granted.

Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 63 Cal.App.5th 660, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 302, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)

The request for an order directing depublication of the opinion is denied.

Corrigan, J., was absent and did not participate.

Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger, Groban and Jenkins, JJ.