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 January 4, 2024.  

THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2024 — 10:00 A.M.  

(1)  Huerta (George) v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., et al., S275431 #22-240  Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., S275431.  (9th Circ. No. 21-16201; 39 F.4th 1176; Northern District of California; D.C. No. 5:18-cv-06761-BLF.)  Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The questions presented are:  “(1) Is time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle and waiting to scan an identification badge, have security guards peer into the vehicle, and then exit a Security Gate compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16? (2) Is time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots, while subject to certain rules from the employer, compensable as ‘hours worked’ or as ‘employer-mandated travel’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16? (3) Is time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16, or under California Labor Code Section 1194, when that time was designated as an unpaid ‘meal period’ under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement?”  

(2)  Harrod (Mark) v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC, et al., S276545 #22-289 Logan v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC, S276545.  (B312967; 82 Cal.App.5th 365; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20STCV26536.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Does an agent operating under an advance health care directive and power of attorney for health care decisions have the authority to enter into an arbitration agreement with a nursing facility on behalf of the principal?