info alert banner:
COVID News Center:

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

Oral Argument
Wednesday May 05, 2021
9:00 am - 4:30 pm

Supreme Court Oral Arguments for May 5, 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.

Oral Arguments begin at 9 a.m., view live.

(1) Bonni (Aram) v. St. Joseph Health System et al., S244148

This case presents the following issue: To what extent, if any, is the initiation and conduct of medical peer review proceedings protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute?

(2) Pollock (Pamela) v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc., et al., S262699

This case presents the following issues:  (1) In a cause of action alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment resulting in a failure to promote in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, did the statute of limitations to file an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing begin to run when the successful candidate was offered and accepted the position, or when that promotion later took effect, if there is no evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the promotion on the earlier date?  (2) Was it proper for the Court of Appeal to award costs on appeal under rule 8.278 of the California Rules of Court against an unsuccessful FEHA claimant in the absence of a finding that the underlying claims were objectively frivolous?

(3)  Sandoval (Jose M.) v. Qualcomm Incorporated, S252796 (Groban, J., not participating; Feuer, J., assigned justice pro tempore)

This case presents the following issue:  Can a company that hires an independent contractor be liable in tort for injuries sustained by the contractor’s employee based solely on the company’s negligent failure to undertake safety measures or is more affirmative action required to implicate Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198?

(4)  People v. Esquivel (Randolph Steven), S262551

The court limited review to the following issue:  Is the judgment in a criminal case considered final for purposes of applying a later ameliorative change in the law when probation is granted and execution of sentence is suspended, or only upon revocation of probation when the suspended sentence is ordered into effect?

(5)  People v. Bryant (Clydell), S259956

This case presents the following issue:  Should the validity of a condition of release on mandatory supervision be assessed under the standards applicable to conditions of parole or the standards applicable to conditions of probation? 

(6)  People v. Dworak (Douglas Edward), [Automatic Appeal], S135272

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