Supreme Court Oral Argument

The live webcast will begin on the California Supreme Court's video streaming platform at 9 a.m. on May 20.

View the Oral Argument Calendar | Briefs

The following case summaries are issued to inform the public about cases that the California Supreme Court has scheduled for oral argument and of their general subject matter.  The descriptions set out below are, in most instances, reproduced from the original news release issued when review in each of these matters was granted, and are provided for the convenience of the public.  The descriptions do not necessarily reflect the view of the court or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court. 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026 — 9:00 A.M.
(1)  Gorobets (Vadim) v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, S287946 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Is a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 that contains two options inherently invalid, presumptively invalid, or invalid or partially or entirely valid depending on a separate and independent evaluation of each option?

(2)  People v. Hyatt (Jason Robert), S290426 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order of dismissal of a criminal proceeding.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Has a defendant who has been sentenced to a prison term and is housed in a county jail pending transport to state prison “entered upon a term of imprisonment in a state prison,” so that they may demand a trial on other, pending charges within 90 days pursuant to Penal Code section 1381?  (2) Is the dismissal of a felony complaint prior to the preliminary hearing an “appealable order in a felony case,” such that an appeal by the People is heard by the Court of Appeal?  (See Pen. Code, § 1235, subd. (b).)

(3)  People v. Hernandez (Angela), S282186 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a post-judgment motion in a criminal matter.  This case presents the following issue:  Does the totality of the circumstances establish that defendant meaningfully understood the immigration consequences of her plea?  The court also directed the parties to serve and file supplemental briefs addressing the following question:  Assuming for the sake of argument that Defendant has established error, has she demonstrated a “reasonable probability” that she would not have pled guilty had she “correctly understood [the] actual or potential immigration consequences” of doing so (People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529)?

1:30 P.M.

(4)  People v. Esquivias (Miguel Alberto), S286371 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting in part and denying in part a post-judgment motion in a criminal matter.  This case presents the following issue:  Does the issuance of an order to show cause to review one aspect of a defendant’s sentence in habeas corpus proceedings render applicable all ameliorative laws taking effect after the defendant’s judgment became final?

(5)  People v. Lightsey (Christopher Charles), [Automatic Appeal], S226760 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
This matter involves issues arising on remand following a reversal in an automatic appeal from a judgment of death. 

(6)  People v. Shove (Theodore Churchill), [Automatic Appeal], S161909 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.