The Supreme Court’s November calendar, announced today, will have five cases on it.  That’s a small enough number to have all arguments heard in one day, same as the September and October calendars.  The last multi-day argument session was in June.

The smaller than usual number of arguments might be due in part to Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar’s retirement at the end of this month.  Vacancies hamper the court because, among other things, the court delays scheduling arguments in cases where the six permanent justices are tentatively evenly divided.

Like all calendars since April 2020, and for the foreseeable future, the November calendar will be remote and based in San Francisco.    (See herehereherehere, and here.)  The arguments will be live streamed, as all arguments have been since May 2016.

Because of the Cuéllar retirement, a Court of Appeal justice will be sitting on each of the November cases.  The pro tems have yet to be chosen and will be assigned on a mostly alphabetical basis.

On November 3, the court will hear the following cases (and, in the non-capital case, with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):

Segal v. ASICS America Corp.:  The court limited the issue to:  “May a party recover costs for preparing multiple sets of trial exhibits and closing slides that were not used at trial?”  The court granted review in October 2020.

People v. Holmes, McClain, and Newborn:  This is an automatic direct appeal from January 1997 judgments of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals.  Counsel were appointed in September and November 2001 and March 2002.  Substitute counsel for one defendant was ordered in November 2003 and for another defendant in July 2005.  Briefing was completed in December 2012.

Doe v. Olson:  (1) Does the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), apply to contract claims, and if so, under what circumstances?  (2) Does an agreement following mediation between the parties in an action for a temporary restraining order, in which they agree not to disparage each other, bar a later unlimited civil lawsuit arising from the same alleged sexual violence?  The court granted review in November 2019.

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.:  In February 2021, the court agreed to answer this question referred by the Ninth Circuit:  “Does the evidentiary standard set forth in section 1102.6 of the California Labor Code replace the McDonnell Douglas [(1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802] test as the relevant evidentiary standard for retaliation claims brought pursuant to section 1102.5 of California’s Labor Code?”  (Links and case citation added.)

People v. Tirado:  Can the trial court impose an enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b), for personal use of a firearm, or under section 12022.53, subdivision (c), for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm, as part of its authority under section 1385 and subdivision (h) of section 12022.53 to strike an enhancement under subdivision (d) for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm resulting in death or great bodily injury, even if the lesser enhancements were not charged in the information or indictment and were not submitted to the jury?  The court granted review in November 2019.