January 15, 2015

A civil morning, criminal afternoon for Supreme Court’s February calendar in Sacramento [UPDATED]

The Supreme Court announced its February calendar yesterday, giving counsel just 21 days notice — one more than the minimum.  The court will hear six cases in one day, three civil cases in the morning and three criminal cases in the afternoon.

On February 4, in Sacramento, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):

California Charter Schools Association v. Los Angeles Unified School District:  Did the Court of Appeal adopt an incorrect methodology for determining what facilities a school district is required to afford to a charter school in accordance with Education Code section 47614?

Tract 19051 Homeowners Association v. Kemp:  Is a prevailing homeowner entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1354 in an action by a homeowners association to enforce its governing documents as those of a common interest development when the homeowner prevailed because it was later determined that the subdivision was not such a development and its governing documents had not been properly reenacted?

Tract 19051 was continued from the court’s January calendar.

Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District:  Is a prevailing defendant in an action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) required to show that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless in order to recover ordinary litigation costs?

[UPDATE:  The day after scheduling the case for oral argument, the court directed the parties in Williams to file supplemental briefs, due after the argument, regarding “the significance, if any, of Assembly Bill No. 1915 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) and its legislative history.”  (Hat tip to Lisa Jaskol for noticing the order.)]

People v. Sasser:  Can a five-year enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)) be added to multiple determinate terms imposed as part of a second-strike sentence (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (e)(1))?

People v. Smith:  [This is an automatic appeal from a December 2002 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.

People v. Kopatz:  [This is an automatic appeal from a March 2001 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]

Leave a Reply