May is the only month with two Supreme Court oral argument calendars.  The early-May calendar, which was announced today with minimum notice, will have nine cases, six of which are civil matters.

On May 7 and 8, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or stated by the court itself):

Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.:  In deciding whether an employee’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation arise from protected activity for purposes of a special motion to strike (Code of Civ. Proc., § 425.16), what is the relevance of an allegation that the employer acted with a discriminatory or retaliatory motive?  Wilson was a grant-and-hold case, until the court un-held it in July 2017.  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in the case.]

Christensen v. Lightbourne:  (1) Should court-ordered child support payments for children living outside the home be considered income available to children in the home in determining eligibility for CalWORKs aid?  (2) When garnished child support is the direct or indirect income of children outside the home who are receiving CalWORKs aid, does the state violate Welfare and Institutions Code section 11005.5 when it allows the garnished income to also be considered in determining the amount of aid to the paying family?  The court granted review in January 2018.  [Disclosure:  I did some work on the amicus brief in this case filed by the Harriett Buhai Center for Family Law, and I serve on the Center’s board.]

Monster Energy Company v. Schechter:  (1) When a settlement agreement contains confidentiality provisions that are explicitly binding on the parties and their attorneys and the attorneys sign the agreement under the legend “APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT,” have the attorneys consented to be bound by the confidentiality provisions?  (2) When evaluating the plaintiff’s probability of prevailing on its claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (b), may a court ignore extrinsic evidence that supports the plaintiff’s claim or accept the defendant’s interpretation of an undisputed but ambiguous fact over that of the plaintiff?  The court granted review only five months ago, in November 2018.

Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District:  Whether, as the Court of Appeal held, the governmental immunity set forth in Government Code section 850.4 may be raised for the first time at trial.  The court granted review in August 2017.

Chen v. L.A. Truck Centers, LLC:  Must a trial court reconsider its ruling on a motion to establish the applicable law governing questions of liability in a tort action when the party whose presence justified that choice of law settles and is dismissed?  The court granted review in March 2017.

In re Rogers:  In 2006, the court affirmed the defendant’s death sentence on automatic direct appeal.  In this related habeas corpus petition, filed in 1999, the court issued an order to show cause in December 2007 limited to claims of newly discovered evidence and use of false evidence, the prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative penalty phase error.

Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc.:  Must a plaintiff seeking class certification under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 or the Consumer Legal Remedies Act demonstrate that records exist permitting the identification of class members?  The court granted review in February 2018.

Satele v. Superior Court:  In July 2018, the court issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted on the ground that the superior court abused its discretion by applying Penal Code section 1054.9, subdivision (c), to a motion for access to trial evidence that is in the possession of the superior court.

People v. Young:  This is an automatic direct appeal from a November 2006 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such cases. Counsel was appointed in June 2010 and briefing was completed in February 2015.