Barajas’s petition for review, whichthe court granted (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(b)(1)), was not filed on behalf of Rodriguez. Nor did this Courtorder review as to Rodriguez on its own motion within 30 daysafter the decision wasfinal in _ 22 the Court of Appeal.® (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(c)(1).) Without a timely filed petition for review by Rodriguez ora grant ofreview on the court’s own motion as to him,it appears that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide his claim. (Cf.

Wl. The amicus Prometheus, a real estate development company headquarteredin San Mateo and employing people throughout California, is the Petitioner in a matter pending in this Court, Prometheus Real Estate Group Inc. v. Superior Court, 8232576. On March 9, 2016, this Court granted review in Prometheus, and deferred further action pending the consideration and disposition ofa related issue in Williams, under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2). Prometheus raises fundamentally the same privacy issue to that in Williams, in the context of a class action, as opposed to a non-class representative action under PAGA. However,this distinction is not relevant in the context at issue—both are representative actions in which the namedplaintiff seeks the names and personal contact information of every formerand current non-exempt employee in California without any showing of state-wide or class-wide violations.

It is unlikely that the Fifth Appellate District will issue any decision until after the time forruling on this petition runs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(b)(1).) Oral argumentin that appeal has beententatively set for November 2010.

Garza also observedthat “[o]n the other hand, unlawful driving of a vehicle is not a form of theft when the driving occurs or continues after the theft is complete (for convenience, we will refer to 2. This Court granted review in Van Orden pursuant to Rule 8.512(d)(2) and deferred further action pending consideration and disposition of the same issue in this matter. Appellant discusses Van Orden pursuant to Rule 8.

Because the disposition in this case was based in part upon the holding that even though Martinez established the facts underlying his felony conviction for transportation of methamphetaminesatisfied the elements of a misdemeanorlisted in section 1170.18, i.e., Health and Safety Codesection 11377, he would still not be eligible for resentencing on his felony conviction because section 11379 is not listed in section 1170.18, should review be granted in either Page or Gonzales, this Court should also grant review in this case as well. Briefing in this case may be deferred pending resolution of this important question of law. (Rule 8.512(d)(2).) 16 I Allowing Resentencing/Reclassification for Felony Transportation of Methamphetamine for Personal Useis Consistent With the Intents and Purposes of Proposition 47 and Preceding Legislation Amending Section 11379 The Court of Appeal concluded that even applying Proposition 47 to the transportation offense committed in 2007, the offense of transportation of methamphetamine for personal use wouldstill be a felony because the amendment of Health and Safety Code section 11379, making transportation for person use a misdemeanor, did not go into effect until January 1, 2014. (Opinion, pp. 6-7.)

- Because Alatriste and Bonilla raise similar issues, this court should grant and hold this case to ensure that appellants are treated the same as - other defendants facing the samesituation in other parts of the state.° (Cal. - Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2).) > Appellants were sentenced under the One Strike Law. Penal Code section 3051 does not apply to sentences imposed under the one strike law or Penal Codesection 667.6, subdivisions (b) through (i) (§ 3051, subd. (h)).

This Court’s approach, which focuses on whether the ultimate outcome was foreseeable, does not support the Third District’s approach, whichteases out a particular element of the charged offense and requires that the jury find that isolated elementto be foreseeable. 12 CONCLUSION This case presents essentially the same important and unsettled issue that is pending review in this Court in People v. Favor. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2), Petitioner requests that this Court grant review in this case, and order further action deferred until the Court disposesofthe issues in People v. Favor, People v. Avila, and People v. Armstrong, or until further order of the Court. Dated: May21, 2012 SA2010300994 31450262.

Second, given the “peculiar 3 1f the Court is inclined to defer further action in this case while the election proceedings remains pending, the Board urges the Court to “grant and hold” review,rather than deny it altogether. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2).) Granting review will permit the Board to administer MMCin othersettings pursuant to Hess in the interim.

8 Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (b). 7 It may also be appropriate for this Court to grant review pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.512, subdivision (d), and defer briefing pending decision on a pending casealso addressing general plan interpretation and authored by Justice Ikola. (Orange Citizensfor Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1005, review granted Oct. 30, 2013, 5212800.) 5 STATEMENTOF FACTS A. The Coastal Act and “ESHA” In 1972, California voters approved the Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition 20), creating temporary commissionsto develop a statewide plan for coastal protection.

ensceeraesenerseeeessseasenees 12 Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch v. Berwald (1999) 76 CalApp.4th 990 occccesssesseesesessseesseseteeeeeasserseeseesseesecesassees 4,16 Maxton v. Western States Metals (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 81 oo.eeceecsenees 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19 Moore v. Regents of University ofCalifornia (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120oeecsscsessssssseseseeseeneseeesessseseeeceeseeeesaseerereneneceessensenees 16 Privette v. Superior Court (Contreras) (1993) 5 Cal4th 689oeecscssssscsceasesseresseessessassessesceneceesesssesenerereesenees 14, 15 Rules California Rules of Court, rule 8.204..........cccscestecssseseeseeeeteoeesaseseceessseseaeusseessees 21 California Rules of Court, rule 8.208 .cscccssececcssseceecereese sevsssscessecsscsecseaceatecceseesseeeesaaes i California Rules of Court, rule 8.500...........ccccecseseeecessssessnsssensesseeesesceseeeeeeserenees 2 iii California Rules of Court, rule 8.504...........ccccccsssccssssccsseeeessesesseeeecssneessnneessseeeses 21 California Rules of Court, rule 8.512...........ccccccsccsecsecssesseneccnesecececsssessnesseeeeeeesnes 19 Other Authorities Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Ethics .........cccccccccccccssscssesecscccceseceecenscsecasacensesesess i iv I STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Theissue in this case is whether the bulk supplier of a defect- free raw material is liable to a purchaser’s employee whois injured using raw material that has been altered during the purchaser’s manufacturing process, over which the raw material supplier has no control. Traditionally, liability may be imposed on a componentpart or raw material supplier only undercertain circumstances: when the raw materialis contaminated, when the supplier exercises substantial control over the manufacturing process, or whenthe raw material is inherently dangerous.