Supreme Court Seal

 

Archive: audio and links to case materials are available here

 

 

 

9:00 A.M.
(4) Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (Bracy Anderson et al., Real Parties in Interest), S221038 #14-133 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (Bracy Anderson et al., Real Parties in Interest), S221038. (A140035; 228 3 Cal.App.4th 605; Superior Court of San Francisco County; JCCP 4748.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Did the plaintiffs in this action who are not residents of California establish specific jurisdiction over their claims against the nonresident pharmaceutical drug manufacturer? (2) Does general jurisdiction exist in light of Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. __ [134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624]?

(5) State Department of Finance et al. v. Commission on State Mandates (County of Los Angeles et al., Real Parties in Interest), S214855
#14-14 State Department of Finance et al. v. Commission on State Mandates (County of Los Angeles et al., Real Parties in Interest), S214855. (B237153; 220 Cal.App.4th 740, Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BS130730.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Are the requirements in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued to real parties in interest by the regional water quality control board state mandates subject to reimbursement under article XIII B, section 6, subdivision (b), of the state Constitution?

(6) Horiike (Hiroshi) v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company et al., S218734 (To be called and continued to the September 2016 calendar.)
#14-80 Horiike (Hiroshi) v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company et al., S218734. (B246606; 225 Cal.App.4th 427; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; SC110477.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: When the buyer and the seller in a residential real estate transaction are each independently represented by a different salesperson from the same brokerage firm, does Civil Code section 2079.13, subdivision (b), make each salesperson the fiduciary to both the buyer and the seller with the duty to provide undivided loyalty, confidentiality and counseling to both?

1:30 P.M.

(7) Kesner, Jr. (Johnny Blaine) v. Superior Court of Alameda County (Pneumo Abex LLC, Real Party in Interest), S219534 and Haver (Joshua) et al. v. BNSF Railway Company, S219919 (consolidated cases) (To be called and continued to the September 2016 calendar.)
#14-98 Kesner, Jr. (Johnny Blaine) v. Superior Court of Alameda County (Pneumo Abex LLC, Real Party in Interest), S219534. (A136378, A136416; 226 Cal.App.4th 251, and Haver (Joshua) et al. v BNSF Railway Company, S219919. (B246527; 226 Cal.App.4th 1104, mod. 226 Cal.App.4th 1376b; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC435551.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. Superior Court of Alameda County; RG11578906.) Both cases present the following issue: If an employer’s business involves either the use or the manufacture of asbestoscontaining products, does the employer owe a duty of care to members of an employee’s household who could be affected by asbestos brought home on the employee’s clothing?