info alert banner:
COVID News Center:

Statewide emergency actions and updates on county court services and operations here

Oral Argument
Tuesday May 18, 2021
9:00 am - 2:30 pm

Supreme Court Oral Arguments for May 18, 2021

Counsel will appear remotely and courtroom seating for the press will be strictly limited to achieve appropriate distancing. The public will continue to have access to argument via livestreaming on the judicial branch website: https://www.courts.ca.gov.

 

(1)  Natarajan (Sundar) v. Dignity Health, S259364

 This case presents the following issue:  Does a physician with privileges at a private hospital have the right to disqualify a hearing officer in a proceeding for revocation of those privileges based on an appearance of bias (see Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017) or must the physician show actual bias? 

(2)  Shalabi (Luis Alexandro) v. City of Fontana et al., S256665

The court limited review to the following issue:  Code of Civil Procedure section 12 provides:  “The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day, and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded.”  In cases where the statute of limitations is tolled, is the first day after tolling ends included or excluded in calculating whether an action is timely filed?  (See Ganahl v. Soher (1884) 2 Cal.Unrep. 415.) 

(3)  Ferra (Jessica) et al. v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, S259172

The court limited review to the following issue:  Did the Legislature intend the term “regular rate of compensation” in Labor Code section 226.7, which requires employers to pay a wage premium if they fail to provide a legally compliant meal period or rest break, to have the same meaning and require the same calculations as the term “regular rate of pay” in Labor Code section 510(a), which requires employers to pay a wage premium for each overtime hour?

(4)  People v. Raybon (Goldy), and consolidated cases, S256978

This case presents the following issue:  Did Proposition 64 [the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act”] decriminalize the possession of up to 28.5 grams of marijuana by adults 21 years of age or older who are in state prison as well as those not in prison?