The Supreme Court has announced its June calendar, which will be the last oral arguments Justice Ming Chin hears before his August 31 retirement.  (The court doesn’t have arguments in July and August.)  There will be 10 cases, more than usual, and will include the automatic appeal in the high-profile case of Scott Peterson, who was convicted and sentenced to death for killing his pregnant wife.

As with other arguments, starting last month, the June calendar will be partially remote and held only in San Francisco.

On June 2 and 3, 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):

Protecting Our Water & Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus:  Is the issuance of a well permit pursuant to state groundwater well-drilling standards a discretionary decision subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) or a ministerial action not subject to review?  The court granted review in November 2018.

Gund v. County of Trinity:  The court limited the issue to — “Were plaintiffs engaged in active law enforcement and limited to workers’ compensation for their injuries (Lab. Code, § 3366) when a deputy sheriff asked them to check on a neighbor who made a 911 call and the officer allegedly misrepresented the potential danger of the situation?”  The court granted review — on its own motion — in August 2018.

United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria v. Newsom:  May the Governor concur in a decision by the Secretary of the Interior to take off-reservation land in trust for purposes of tribal gaming without legislative authorization or ratification, or does such an action violate the separation of powers provisions of the state Constitution?  The court granted review in January 2017.  Justice Joshua Groban is recused, presumably because the case involves actions taken by then-Governor Jerry Brown, for whom Justice Groban was the senior advisor at the time.  Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal Justice Richard Fybel will be the pro tem replacement.

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles:  May a defendant who commits an intentional tort invoke Civil Code section 1431.2, which limits a defendant’s liability for non-economic damages “in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault,” to have his liability for damages reduced based on principles of comparative fault?  The court granted review in October 2018.

People v. Peterson:  This is an automatic direct appeal from a March 2005 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such cases.  Counsel was appointed in July 2009.  Briefing was completed in July 2015.

People v. Duong:  This is an automatic direct appeal from a March 2003 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such cases.  Counsel was appointed in December 2007.  Briefing was completed in April 2015.

Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.:  In September 2019, the court agreed to answer these questions posed by the Ninth Circuit:  (1) Does section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code void a contract by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with another business?  [Link added.]  (2) Is a plaintiff required to plead an independently wrongful act in order to state a claim for intentional interference with a contract that can be terminated by a party at any time, or does that requirement apply only to at-will employment contracts?  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief in this case.]  This case is moving quickly — the last response to amicus curiae briefs was filed less than one month ago.

Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority:  Are payments by the state In-Home Supportive Services program to family members for services they provide to relatives with developmental disabilities excluded from income under 24 Code of Federal Regulations section 5.609(c)(16) in determining eligibility for Section 8 housing?  The court granted review in August 2018.

People v. Morales:  This is an automatic direct appeal from an August 2005 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such cases.  Counsel was appointed in September 2009.  Briefing was completed in January 2015.

People v. Suarez:  This case, which was originally on the April calendar, 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.