Video Archive: December  6  and December 7

 

The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing at its courtroom in the Ronald Reagan State Office Building, 300 South Spring Street, Third Floor, North Tower, Los Angeles (map), California.

 

Oral Argument Calendar

Tuesday, December 6
IN MEMORIAM – HON. MALCOLM M. LUCAS
Chief Justice, California Supreme Court (1987–1996)
Associate Justice, California Supreme Court (1984–1987)


1:30 P.M.

(1)  People v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (Johnny Morales, Real Party in Interest), S228642
Opinion Filed 2/16/17

This case presents the following issue:  Did the superior court have jurisdiction to order various entities to preserve materials that might at a later date be included in a motion for post-conviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9? 

(2)  People v. Sivongxxay (Vaene), S078895 [Automatic Appeal]
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

(3)  People v. Delgado (Anthony Gilbert), S089609 [Automatic Appeal]
Opinion Filed 2/27/17

This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

Wednesday, December 7
9:00 A.M.

(4)  City of San Jose et al. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Ted Smith, Real Party in Interest), S218066
Opinion Filed 3/2/17

This case presents the following issue:  Are written communications pertaining to city business, including email and text messages, which (a) are sent or received by public officials and employees on their private electronic devices using their private accounts, (b) are not stored on city servers, and (c) are not directly accessible by the city, “public records” within the meaning of the California Public Records Act?

(5)  Central Coast Forest Association et al. v. California Fish and Game Commission, S208181
Opinion Filed 2/27/17

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate.  The court limited review to the following issues:  (1) Under the California Endangered Species Act, Fish and Game Code section 2050 et seq., may the Fish and Game Commission consider a petition to delist a species on the ground that the original listing was in error?  (2) If so, does the petition at issue here contain sufficient information to warrant the Commission’s further consideration?

(6)  J.M., a Minor, etc., v. Huntington Beach Union High School District, S230510
Opinion Filed 3/6/17

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition for relief under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810, et seq.). This case includes the following issue:  Must a claimant under the Government Claims Act file a petition for relief from Government Code section 945.4’s claim requirement, as set forth in Government Code section 946.6, if he has submitted a timely application for leave to present a late claim under Government Code section 911.6, subdivision (b)(2), and was a minor at all relevant times?

1:30 P.M.

(7)  McGill (Sharon) v. Citibank, N.A., S224086  
(Corrigan J., not participating; Haller, J., assigned justice pro tempore.)

Opinion Filed 4/6/17
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 321, preempt the California rule (Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066; Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303) that statutory claims for public injunctive relief are not subject to compulsory private arbitration?

(8)  Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. et al. v. American Asphalt South, Inc., S225398
Opinion Filed 2/16/17

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) In the context of competitive bidding on a public works contract, may the second lowest bidder state a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against the winning bidder based on an allegation that the winning bidder did not fully comply with California’s prevailing wage law after the contract was awarded?  (2) To state a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, must the plaintiff allege that it had a preexisting economic relationship with a third party with probable future benefit that preceded or existed separately from defendant’s interference, or is it sufficient for the plaintiff to allege that its economic expectancy arose at the time the public agency awarded the contract to the low bidder?

(9)  People v. Hall (LaQuincy), S227193
Opinion Filed 2/9/17

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Are probation conditions prohibiting defendant from: (a) “owning, possessing or having in his custody or control any handgun, rifle, shotgun or any firearm whatsoever or any weapon that can be concealed on his person”; and (b) “using or possessing or having in his custody or control any illegal drugs, narcotics, narcotics paraphernalia without a prescription,” unconstitutionally vague?  (2) Is an explicit knowledge requirement constitutionally mandated?