The Supreme Court yesterday announced its June calendar. You might ask, didn’t the court just announce an oral argument calendar last week? Why, yes it did. That’s because the end of the term has an extra argument session, in late May (the one announced last week), that is held the week before the June calendar.
This year, unlike the late-May calendar, the June calendar features mostly civil cases.
On June 4 and 5, in Los Angeles, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or stated by the court itself):
O.T.O., L.L.C. v. Kho: (1) Was the arbitration remedy at issue in this case sufficiently “affordable and accessible” within the meaning of Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109 to require the company’s employees to forego the right to an administrative Berman hearing on wage claims? (2) Did the employer waive its right to bypass the Berman hearing by waiting until the morning of that hearing, serving a demand for arbitration, and refusing to participate in the hearing? The court granted review in November 2017. Party briefing was completed in July 2018.
Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego: (1) Is the enactment of a zoning ordinance categorically a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)? (2) Is the enactment of a zoning ordinance allowing the operation of medical marijuana cooperatives in certain areas the type of activity that may cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment? The court granted review in January 2017. Party briefing was completed in October 2017.
Voris v. Lampert: Is conversion of earned but unpaid wages a valid cause of action? The court granted review in July 2017. Party briefing was completed in February 2018.
Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company: At the Ninth Circuit’s request, the court will answer these questions, as restated by the Supreme Court — (1) Is California’s common law notice-prejudice rule a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis? (2) If the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis, can the notice-prejudice rule apply to the consent provision in this case? The court agreed in March 2017 to answer the questions. Party briefing was completed in August 2017.
In re Masters: In this capital habeas corpus proceeding, the court issued an order to show cause limited to claims of prosecutorial misconduct and recantation by a witness at the penalty phase of trial. The order to show cause issued in February 2007. In April 2008, the court referred the matter to the superior court for a hearing. The referee’s report was filed in September 2011. Party briefing regarding the report was completed in May 2012 and supplemental briefing was completed in May 2018. In February 2016, the court — on direct automatic appeal — affirmed the petitioner’s death sentence.
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court: When a law enforcement agency creates an internal Brady list (see Gov. Code, § 3305.5), and a peace officer on that list is a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution, may the agency disclose to the prosecution (a) the name and identifying number of the officer and (b) that the officer may have relevant exonerating or impeaching material in his or her confidential personnel file, or can such disclosure be made only by court order on a properly filed Pitchess motion? (See Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83; People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696; Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531; Pen. Code, §§ 832.7-832.8; Evid. Code, §§ 1043-1045.) The court granted review in October 2017. Initial party briefing was completed in April 2018. In January of this year, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the question, What bearing, if any, does SB 1421, signed into law on September 30, 2018, have on this court’s examination of the question presented for review in the above-titled case?
ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court: Does a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) seeking recovery of individualized lost wages as civil penalties under Labor Code section 558 fall within the preemptive scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.)? The court granted review in March 2018. Party briefing was completed in July 2018.
City of Oroville v. Superior Court: Is a city liable for inverse condemnation when a blockage in a city sewer main and the absence of a legally required backwater valve on private property caused sewage to back up onto that property? The court granted review in August 2017. Party briefing was completed in December 2017.
People v. Ovieda: Did the trial court err when it applied the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment as the basis for denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of drug manufacturing equipment and an assault weapon found in his residence after police officers responded to an emergency call involving his threats to commit suicide, encountered defendant outside the residence, and entered without a warrant or consent? The court granted review in April 2018. Party briefing was completed in January 2019.
People v. Capers: This is an automatic direct appeal from a September 2006 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such cases. Counsel was appointed in June 2010 and briefing was completed in March 2017.