August 25, 2016
May is usually the only month during which the Supreme Court has two separate oral argument sessions. This year, however, the court will be hearing arguments at the beginning and, it announced today, also at the end of next month. But, this isn’t like May, where the second calendar is an extra one for the court. The late September calendar is replacing the normal October calendar; atypically, there will be no arguments in October. Also atypically, all the cases to be argued are civil matters.
The unusual timing of this calendar is likely because the court is taking its show on the road — away from its San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento courtrooms — which it does occasionally. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) This time, the justices will be sitting at the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal in San Diego. The timing of what the court is calling a “historic special session” coincides with the beginning of the State Bar’s annual meeting in the same city.
On September 29, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.: (1) Do Labor Code, § 226.7, and Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 4-2001 require that employees be relieved of all duties during rest breaks? (2) Are security guards who remain on call during rest breaks performing work during that time under the analysis of Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 833? [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in the case.]
Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation v. Superior Court: Is the proposed development project of low density housing at issue in this case consistent with the city’s general plan?
In re Transient Occupancy Tax Cases: When a customer books a hotel room through an online travel company, should the occupancy tax levied on the rent charged by the hotel be calculated based on the retail rate paid by the customer to obtain the right to use the room or on the wholesale amount that the hotel receives from the online travel company after that company has deducted its markup and fees?
People v. Miami Nation Enterprises: Is a payday loan company owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe entitled to tribal sovereign immunity, and thus exempt from state regulation, if the day-to-day management of the business is handled by a third party management company that is not affiliated with the tribe and pays the tribe a small percentage of the gross revenues?