Supreme Court Oral Argument

View Agenda | Briefs | Webcast Recording

In accordance with Administrative Order 2023-05-11, the Supreme Court has resumed in-person oral argument sessions.  Counsel have the option to appear in person at these sessions, or remotely via video.  The public may attend in person and will also continue to have access to argument via live-streaming on the judicial branch website:  https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/.  

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 November 8, 2023.  

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2023 — 9:00 A.M.  

(1) Estrada (Jorge Luis) et al. v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., S274340

(2) Romero (Tatana Spicakova) et al. v. Shih (Li-Chuan) et al. (U.S. Bank National Association, Cross-defendant and Respondent), S275023  

(3) In re Vaquera (Oscar Manuel) on Habeas Corpus, S258376  

1:30 P.M.  

(4)  People v. Helzer (Glen Taylor), [Automatic Appeal], S132256 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2023 — 9:00 A.M.  

(1)  Estrada (Jorge Luis) et al. v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., S274340 #22-170  Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., S274340.  (G058397, G058969; 76 Cal.App.5th 685; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2013-00692890.)  

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action.  The court limited review to the following issue:  Do trial courts have inherent authority to ensure that claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) will be manageable at trial, and to strike or narrow such claims if they cannot be managed?

(2)  Romero (Tatana Spicakova) et al. v. Shih (Li-Chuan) et al. (U.S. Bank National Association, Cross-defendant and Respondent), S275023 #22-218  Romero v. Shih, S275023.  (B310069; 78 Cal.App.5th 326; Los Angeles County Superior Court; EC064933.)  

Petitions for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Did the trial court correctly find the existence of an implied easement under the facts? 

(3)  In re Vaquera (Oscar Manuel) on Habeas Corpus, S258376 #19-195  In re Vaquera, S258376.  (G056786; 39 Cal.App.5th 233; Orange County Superior Court; 12NF0653.)  

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Did the Court of Appeal err by disagreeing with People v. Jimenez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 373 and endorsing as mandatory the sentencing practice prohibited in that case; (2) Is the Court of Appeal’s decision incorrect under People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735; (3) Did the Court of Appeal err by failing to address petitioner’s claims as to the issues of waiver and estoppel?

1:30 P.M.  

(4)  People v. Helzer (Glen Taylor), [Automatic Appeal], S132256

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