The Supreme Court today announced its late-May calendar. May is the only month with two separate calendars. The first one will be two weeks before the second, and the June calendar will be two weeks after the second.
For the foreseeable future, arguments will be partially remote and held only in San Francisco. (See here and here.) The court continues to accommodate counsel’s special circumstances in that regard. (See People v. Silveria and Travis, below.)
As mentioned, one of the late-May cases is expected to answer a question that the Ninth Circuit has been asking for a long time.
On May 19 and 20, 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):
Jarman v. HCR ManorCare, Inc.: (1) Does Health and Safety Code section 1430, subdivision (b), authorize a maximum award of $500 per “cause of action” in a lawsuit against a skilled nursing facility for violation of specified rights or only $500 per lawsuit? (2) Does section 1430, subdivision (b), authorize an award of punitive damages in such an action? The court granted review in June 2017. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy submitted a letter supporting the petition for review.] There was a four-month bankruptcy stay two years ago. (See here and here.)
Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Touchstone): The court asked the parties to address these issues: (1) If, on remand and in conjunction with continuing pretrial proceedings, the prosecution lists the victim as a witness who will testify at trial (see Pen. Code, §§ 1054.1, subd. (a); 1054.7) and if the materiality of the sought communications is shown, does the trial court have authority, pursuant to statutory and/or inherent power to control litigation before it and to insure fair proceedings, to order the victim witness (or any other listed witness), on pain of sanctions, to either (a) comply with a subpoena served on him or her, seeking disclosure of the sought communications subject to in camera review and any appropriate protective or limiting conditions, or (b) consent to disclosure by provider Facebook subject to in camera review and any appropriate protective or limiting conditions? (2) Would a court order under either (1)(a) or (1)(b) be valid under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C., section 2702(b)(3)? (3) Assuming orders described in (1) cannot properly be issued and enforced in conjunction with continuing pretrial proceedings, does the trial court have authority, on an appropriate showing during trial, to issue and enforce such orders? (4) Would a court order contemplated under (3) be proper under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C., section 2702(b)(3)? With regard to questions (1)-(4), see, e.g., O’Grady v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1423; Juror Number One v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 854; Negro v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 879; and the Court of Appeal decision below, Facebook, Inc., v. Superior Court (Touchstone) (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 729, 745-748. (5) As an alternative to options (1) or (3) set forth above, may the trial court, acting pursuant to statutory and/or inherent authority to control the litigation before it and to insure fair proceedings, and consistently with 18 U.S.C. section 2702(b)(3), order the prosecution to issue a search warrant under 18 U.S.C. section 2703 regarding the sought communications? (Cf. State v. Bray (Or.App. 2016) 383 P.3d 883, pets. for rev. accepted June 15, 2017, 397 P.3d 30 [S064843, the state’s pet.]; 397 P.3d 37 [S064846, the defendant’s pet.].) In this regard, what is the effect, if any, of California Constitution, article I, sections 15 and 24? The court granted review in January 2018. It later asked the parties to brief the effect, if any, of its opinion in a similar Facebook case (see here). [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy has filed amicus curiae briefs in the case.]
Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC: When a consumer chooses restitution as a remedy for a defective vehicle under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.), is the consumer entitled to receive registration fees paid after the time of sale as part of the restitution payable under Civil Code sections 1794 and 1793.2(d)(2)(B)? The court granted review in February 2018.
Robinson v. Lewis: This is the old case from the Ninth Circuit. As restated by the Supreme Court, the question is: “When a California court denies a claim in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the petitioner subsequently files the same or a similar claim in a petition for writ of habeas corpus directed to the original jurisdiction of a higher court, what is the significance, if any, of the period of time between the earlier petition’s denial and the subsequent petition’s filing (66 days in this case) for the purpose of determining the subsequent claim’s timeliness under California law?” The court accepted the case from the Ninth Circuit in December 2015.
Conservatorship of O.B.: The court limited the issue to: “On appellate review in a conservatorship proceeding of a trial court order that must be based on clear and convincing evidence, is the reviewing court simply required to find substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order or must it find substantial evidence from which the trial court could have made the necessary findings based on clear and convincing evidence?” The court granted review in May 2019. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief in this case.]
People v. Anderson: The court limited the issue to: “Were the enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (e), improperly imposed as to counts 3 through 7 because the prosecution did not specifically plead a violation of this subdivision as to those counts? (See People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735.)” The court granted review in March 2019.
People v. Henderson: This is an automatic direct appeal from a May 2001 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such cases. Counsel was appointed in August 2006. Initial briefing was completed in July 2014. Along with its oral argument notice, the court told counsel to be prepared to address “whether the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence Mr. Henderson’s statements to the police which had been obtained in violation of his rights protected by Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 and Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477.”
People v. Silveria and Travis: This is an automatic direct appeal from June 1997 judgments of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such cases. Counsel was appointed in December 2000 and January 2001. Initial briefing was completed in February 2013. As in other matters, the court denied the request of one defendant’s counsel to postpone the argument until in-person hearings resume. (See here.) In response to a follow-up letter, the court assured counsel, “you will not be required to leave your personal residence,” and it said, “The court’s technical staff, in coordination with our clerk’s office, will work with you beginning at least 10 days prior to any scheduled oral argument to assess whether proceeding by videoconference from your home would be feasible. In this regard court staff will be available to undertake test runs with you in order to simulate, as closely as possible, conditions that may occur on the date of oral argument. In addition, the court will endeavor to develop a contingency plan (that, again, would not involve you having to leave your personal residence), to be implemented if proceeding via video proves infeasible.”