The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing at its courtroom in the Ronald M. George State Office Complex, Earl Warren Building, 350 McAllister Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California, on May 3 and 4, 2017.

Oral Argument Calendar

Wednesday, May 3
9:00 A.M.

(1)  Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC et al., S223536
#15-25  Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC et al., S223536.  (A138306; 231 Cal.App.4th 805; Superior Court of Marin County; CIV081957.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying attorney fees in a civil action.  This case includes the following issues:  (1) Does the assertion of an agreement as an affirmative defense implicate the attorney fee provision in that agreement?  (2) Does the term “action” or “proceeding” in Civil Code section 1717 and in attorney fee provisions encompass the assertion of an affirmative defense? 

(2)  Lewis (Alwin Carl) v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Medical Board of California, Real Party in Interest), S219811
#14-108  Lewis (Alwin Carl) v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Medical Board of California, Real Party in Interest), S219811.  (B252032; 226 Cal.App.4th 933; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BS139289.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate.  This case includes the following issues:  (1) Do a physician’s patients have a protected privacy interest in the controlled substance prescription data collected and submitted to the California Department of Justice under Health and Safety Code section 11165?  (2) If so, is disclosure of such data to the Medical Board of California justified by a compelling state interest? 

(3)  Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority et al. (Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, Real Party in Interest and Respondent) and Consolidated Case, S222472
#14-139  Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority et al. (Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, Real Party in Interest and Respondent) and Consolidated Case, S222472, S222472.  (A139222, A139235; 230 Cal.App.4th 85; Superior Court of Marin County; CV1103591, CV1103605.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments in actions for writ of administrative mandate.  This case includes the following issues:  (1) Does the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act [ICCTA] (49 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq.) preempt the application of the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] (Pub. Res. Code, § 21050 et seq.) to a state agency’s proprietary acts with respect to a state-owned and funded rail line or is CEQA not preempted in such circumstances under the market participant doctrine (see Town of Atherton v. California High Speed Rail Authority (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 314)?  (2) Does the ICCTA preempt a state agency’s voluntary commitments to comply with CEQA as a condition of receiving state funds for a state-owned rail line and/or leasing state-owned property?

1:30 P.M.

(4)  People v. DeLeon (Allen Dimen), S230906
#16-34  People v. DeLeon (Allen Dimen), S230906.  (A140050; 241 Cal.App.4th 1059; Superior Court of Solano County; FCR302185.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order revoking parole.  This case presents the following issue:  In light of the changes made to the parole revocation process in the 2011 realignment legislation (Stats. 2011, ch. 15; Stats. 2012, ch. 43), is a parolee entitled to a probable cause hearing conducted according to the procedures outlined in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 before parole can be revoked?

Thursday, May 4
9:00 A.M.

(5)  Lynch (Barbara) et al. v. California Coastal Commission, S221980
#14-140  Lynch (Barbara) et al. v. California Coastal Commission, S221980.  (D064120; 229 Cal.App.4th 658; Superior Court of San Diego County; 37-2011-00058666-CU-WM-NC.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate.  This case includes the following issues:  (1) Did plaintiffs, who objected in writing and orally to certain conditions contained within a coastal development permit approved by defendant California Coastal Commission and who filed a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) challenging those conditions, waive their right to challenge the conditions by subsequently executing and recording deed restrictions recognizing the existence of the conditions and constructing the project as approved?  (2) Did the permit condition allowing plaintiffs to construct a seawall on their property, but requiring them to apply for a new permit in 20 years or to remove the seawall, violate Public Resources Code section 30235 or the federal Constitution?  (3) Were plaintiffs required to obtain a permit to reconstruct the bottom portion of a bluff-to-beach staircase that had been destroyed by a series of winter storms, or was that portion of the project exempt from permitting requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30610, subdivision (g)(1)? 

(6)  Williams (Michael) v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Marshalls of CA, LLC, Real Party in Interest), S227228
#15-150  Williams (Michael) v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Marshalls of CA, LLC, Real Party in Interest), S227228, S227228.  (B259967; 236 Cal.App.4th 1151; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC503806.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Is the plaintiff in a representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) entitled to discovery of the names and contact information of other “aggrieved employees” at the beginning of the proceeding or is the plaintiff first required to show good cause in order to have access to such information?  (2) In ruling on such a request for employee contact information, should the trial court first determine whether the employees have a protectable privacy interest and, if so, balance that privacy interest against competing or countervailing interests, or is a protectable privacy interest assumed?  (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1; Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360.)

(7)  Cleveland National Forest Foundation et al. v. San Diego Association of Governments et al. (People, Intervener and Appellant), S223603
#15-18  Cleveland National Forest Foundation et al. v. San Diego Association of Governments et al. (People, Intervener and Appellant), S223603.  (D063288; 231 Cal.App.4th 1056; Superior Court of San Diego County; 37-2011-00101593-CU-TT-CTL, 37-2011-00101660-CU-TT-CTL.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action.  The court limited review to the following issue:  Must the environmental impact report for a regional transportation plan include an analysis of the plan’s consistency with the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals reflected in Executive Order No. S-3-05, so as to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)? 

1:30 P.M.

(8)  In re R.T., S226416
#15-92  In re R.T., S226416.  (B256411; 235 Cal.App.4th 795; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; DK03719.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed orders in a juvenile dependency proceeding.  The court limited review to the following issue:  Does Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorize dependency jurisdiction without a finding that parental fault or neglect is responsible for the failure or inability to supervise or protect the child? 

(9)  In re Albert C., S231315
#16-59  In re Albert C., S231315.  (B256480; 241 Cal.App.4th 1436; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; MJ21492.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed orders in a juvenile wardship proceeding.  The court limited review to the following issues:  (1) Did the juvenile court violate minor’s due process rights by detaining him well past the 120-day limit established in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Juvenile Division’s “Amended Competency to Stand Trial Protocol” (Protocol), without evidence of progress toward attaining competency?  (2) Does a violation of the Protocol establish a presumption of a due process violation?

(10)  People v. Estrada (Mario R.), S232114
#16-104  People v. Estrada (Mario R.), S232114.  (B260573; 243 Cal.App.4th 336; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; GA025008.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to recall sentence.  This case presents the following issue:  Did the trial court improperly rely on the facts of counts dismissed under a plea agreement to find defendant ineligible for resentencing under the provisions of Proposition 36?