A petition for review, along with more than one depublication request, has been filed in Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, no. S716146. Here is the depublication request I filed on behalf of CAOC on September 14, 2009. It basically makes the same points as in my original blog post on the decision.
Yabsley was handed down on August 19, 2009 and became final on or about September 18, 2009. The petition for review was due ten days thereafter and was filed on September 29, 2009 (and deemed timely per Rule of Court 8.25(b)(3)).
I thought about writing directly to the Court of Appeal and suggesting some (non-outcome-determinative) modifications to the opinion, but the last time I tried that, which was in the Crab Addison case, the panel refused to accept my letter for filing, evidently believing they had no authority to consider it. Therefore, the only other option was a depublication request (which I had no interest in filing in Crab Addison).
I have, however, seen that approach work in the past. For example, the Supreme Court accepted a post-opinion letter from a non-party in the Vasquez attorneys' fees case, which resulted in an important (but non-outcome-determinative) amendment to the opinion on the Court's own motion. I've also seen the same thing in the Court of Appeal in the past. I think the Crab Addison court could have accepted the letter based on Vasquez as a precedent.