The last three calendars of the term (early-May, late-May, and June) before the no-argument months of July and August were typically inordinately large. That changed a year ago and continues this year as the newly announced early-May calendar has a normal number of cases.
This calendar is the ninth straight (!) with pro tems (all of whom have yet to be named), and will bring to 71 (!) the number of Supreme Court cases with randomly selected Court of Appeal justices temporarily filling the vacancy created by Justice Kathryn Werdegar’s retirement. (It’s been 394 days (!) since Justice Werdegar announced her retirement and she left the court last August (!).) Yes, pro tems pose a potential institutional problem.
On May 1, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or framed by the court itself):
Troester v. Starbucks Corporation: As asked by the Ninth Circuit, the issue is whether “the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692 (1946) and Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 1984), appl[ies] to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197.” The Supreme Court agreed to answer the question in August 2016. From the Ninth Circuit’s perspective, it’s an unusual request. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in this case.]
Jameson v. Desta: In the case of a litigant who has been granted a fee waiver (Gov. Code, § 68631), can a county’s superior court employ a policy that has the practical effect of denying the services of an official court reporter to civil litigants who have been granted such a fee waiver, if the result is to preclude those litigants from procuring and providing a verbatim transcript for appellate review? Last October, the court asked for supplemental briefing on the question, “What effect, if any, does the 2015 amendment to California Rules of Court, rule 3.55(7) and the accompanying Advisory Committee Comment have on the resolution of the issue presented by this case?” The court granted review in January 2016.
Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc.: Does the six-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.4, which governs actions based on birth and pre-birth injuries and is not subject to tolling for minority, or the two-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.8, which applies to actions for injury based upon exposure to a toxic substance and is subject to tolling for minority, govern an action alleging pre-birth injuries due to exposure to a toxic substance? The court granted review in August 2016. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amici curiae brief in this case.]
Samara v. Matar: When a trial court grants a summary judgment motion on two alternative grounds, and the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment on only one ground and expressly declines to address the second, does the affirmed judgment have preclusive effect as to the second ground? The court granted review in May 2017.
In re Manriquez: In June 2012, the court issued an order to show cause why habeas corpus relief should not be granted to this death row prisoner on grounds of juror misconduct. The court affirmed the 1993 death sentence over a dozen years ago.
People v. Spencer: This is an automatic direct appeal from a November 1996 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
[Update: Pro tems announced for early-May calendar.]