Supreme Court Oral Argument

View the Oral Argument Calendar | Briefs | Webcast Recording

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 — 10:00 A.M.

(1)  California Capital Insurance Company et al. v. Hoehn (Cory Michael), S277510 
#23-16 California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn, S277510.  (C092450; nonpublished opinion; Placer County Superior Court; SCV0026851.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a civil action.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Is there a time limitation for filing a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) to vacate a judgment that is allegedly void based on extrinsic evidence?  (2) In the alternative, does an equitable motion to vacate an allegedly void judgment for lack of service require proving intentional bad conduct in order to show extrinsic fraud?

(2)  Rodriguez (Everardo) et al. v. FCA US LLC, S274625
#22-187 Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC, S274625.  (E073766; 77 Cal.App.5th 209; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1807727.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Is a used vehicle that is still covered by the manufacturer’s express warranty a “new motor vehicle” within the meaning of Civil Code section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2), which defines “new motor vehicle” as including a “motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty”? 

1:30 P.M.

(3)  North American Title Company et al. v. Superior Court of Fresno County (Carolyn Cortina et al., Real Parties in Interest), S280752
#23-171 North American Title Company et al. v. Superior Court, S280752.  (F084913; 91 Cal.App.5th 948; Fresno County Superior Court; 07CECG01169.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate in a civil action.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Is the requirement that a party seeking to disqualify a trial judge for alleged lack of impartiality file a verified statement of disqualification “at the earliest practicable opportunity” subject to waiver or forfeiture?  (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that the trial judge’s challenged statements did not qualify as expressions of the court’s views on issues pending before it in the proceeding?