In a potentially singular confluence of interests, all parties in Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc., distressed that the Court of Appeal reissued its opinion despite their notice of settlement, filed a Joint Petition for Review on April 20, 2009. The 72-page opinion from the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) addresses issues of standing under the UCL, alter-ego liability and insurance service charges as premiums. The petition was filed by Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins for class plaintiffs, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for defendants, and Fulbright & Jaworski for third-party movants. Consumer Attorneys of California, among others, filed a letter seeking depublication on the grounds that the appellate court's ruling "threatens to upend settled law."
Despite that unholy alliance, on June 10, 2009 the Supreme Court denied the Joint Petition for Review and the Requests for Depublication. Justices Baxter, Chin, and Corrigan were of the opinion that the petition should have been granted. I can't say that this result offers encouragement to parties that finally work to settle their disputes. Such polarized interests rarely agree on anything. When they do, its a signal that careful scrutiny is in order. However, others have suggested that if all the parties are unhappy with the result, there may be some validity to it. (Note: The Recorder article on Law.com appears to have been authored before the Supreme Court's decision to deny the Petition was publicly available.)