The petition for review of defendants, cross-complainants, and respondents Li-Chuan Shih et al. is granted. The petition for review of plaintiffs, cross-defendants, and appellants Tatana Spicakova Romero et al. is denied.
The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Did the trial court correctly find the existence of an implied easement under the facts?
Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 78 Cal.App.5th 326, 293 Cal.Rptr.3d 477, 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.)
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins and Guerrero, JJ.