The Supreme Court this afternoon published its April calendar. As previously announced, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, counsel will argue remotely, public seating will be limited, and the court will be hearing arguments at its San Francisco home instead of in Los Angeles as originally scheduled.
On April 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):
Abbott Laboratories v. Superior Court: Does a district attorney have the authority to recover restitution and civil penalties under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) for violations occurring outside his or her territorial jurisdiction? The court granted review in August 2018. First District, Division Three, Court of Appeal Justice Carin Fujisaki — the Chief Justice’s former principal attorney — is sitting pro tem. It’s unclear which permanent justice is recused, but it might be Justice Joshua Groban — the other six justices were not recused when they all voted to grant review, which was before Justice Groban joined the court. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in the case.]
Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.: Like the related Oman case (see below), this comes from the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court reordered and revised the questions presented: (1) Does California Labor Code section 226 apply to wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who resides in California, receives pay in California, and pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California or any other state? (2) The Industrial Wage Commission Wage Order 9 exempts from its wage statement requirements an employee who has entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in accordance with the Railway Labor Act (RLA). (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11090(1)(E).) Does the RLA exemption in Wage Order 9 bar a wage statement claim brought under California Labor Code section 226 by an employee who is covered by a CBA? The court agreed in July 2018 to answer the Ninth Circuit’s questions, as restated.
Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.: Like the related Ward case (see above), this comes from the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court reworded the questions presented: (1) Do California Labor Code sections 204 and 226 apply to wage payments and wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who, in the relevant pay period, works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time? (2) Does California minimum wage law apply to all work performed in California for an out-of-state employer by an employee who works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time? (See Cal. Labor Code, §§ 1182.12, 1194; Cal. Code Regs., § 11090(4).) (3) Does the Armenta/Gonzalez bar on averaging wages apply to a pay formula that generally awards credit for all hours on duty, but which, in certain situations resulting in higher pay, does not award credit for all hours on duty? The court agreed in July 2018 to answer the Ninth Circuit’s questions, as restated.
People v. Frahs: The court limited the issues to: (1) Does Penal Code section 1001.36 apply retroactively to all cases in which the judgment is not yet final? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err by remanding for a determination of defendant’s eligibility under Penal Code section 1001.36? Section 1001.36 allows pretrial diversion for certain mentally disordered defendants. The court granted review on its own motion — and with a pro tem justice casting a deciding vote — in December 2018.
People v. Stamps: Is a certificate of probable cause required for a defendant to challenge a negotiated sentence based on a subsequent ameliorative, retroactive change in the law? The court granted review in June 2019. At the same time, the court also granted review in People v. Kelly, which raises the same issue, but later, while briefing was under way, the court made Kelly a grant-and-hold.
In re Scoggins: Was the evidence at trial sufficient to support the robbery-murder special circumstance under People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522? The habeas corpus petitioner was sentenced to life without parole for a fatal shooting, but he was not the shooter, nor did he intend the shooting, but he did plan to have the shooter beat and rob the victim. The court granted review in April 2019.
Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. California Department of Public Health: (1) Does equitable tolling apply to a petition for writ of mandate to challenge an action by a state regulatory agency that is filed outside the specified period? (2) Is equitable tolling justified on the facts of this case? The court granted review in August 2018.
People v. Suarez: This is an automatic direct appeal from a November 2001 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such cases. Counsel was first appointed in April 2007. Initial briefing was completed in July 2016.