March 3, 2017

Nine arguments on the April calendar in Los Angeles [Updated]

The Supreme Court announced its April calendar.  There will be 9 arguments in 10 cases (two cases are consolidated).

On April 4 and 5, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):

People v. Superior Court (Sahlolbei):  If an individual performing work for and on behalf of a public entity would qualify as an independent contractor for purposes of tort liability at common law, can that individual be subject to the criminal conflict-of-interest provisions of Government Code section 1090?

Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara:  Is the City of Santa Barbara’s 1 percent increase on its electricity bills (i.e., the 1 percent surcharge) a tax subject to Proposition 218’s voter approval requirement or a franchise fee that may be imposed by the City without voter consent?

People v. Chaney and People v. Valencia:  Does the definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” (Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (c)) under Proposition 47 (“the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”) apply retroactively to resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126)?

Ryan v. Rosenfeld:  Is the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 separately appealable?

Parrish v. Latham & Watkins:  (1) Does the denial of former employees’ motion for summary judgment in an action for misappropriation of trade secrets conclusively establish that their former employer had probable cause to bring the action and thus preclude the employees’ subsequent action for malicious prosecution, even if the trial court in the prior action later found that it had been brought in bad faith?  (2) Is the former employees’ malicious prosecution action against the employer’s former attorneys barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 304.6?

926 North Ardmore Avenue v. County of Los Angeles:  Does Revenue and Taxation Code section 11911 authorize a county to impose a documentary transfer tax based on a change in ownership or control of a legal entity that directly or indirectly holds title to real property?

In re Bell:  In this case, which is related to the automatic appeal in People v. Bell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 582, the court issued an order to show cause why petitioner is not entitled to relief on the ground of juror misconduct.

K.R. v. Superior Court:  Was the juvenile entitled to a disposition hearing before the same judge who accepted his admissions to a criminal offense and probation violations even though he did not make an affirmative showing of individualized facts in the record establishing that this was an implied term of the plea agreement?  (See People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749.)

People v. Hopson:  Was defendant’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment violated when the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce out-of-court statements made by her deceased codefendant?

[March 15 update:  The court today continued the Parrish argument to the June calendar.  We’re not sure why the argument was continued, but the docket reflects that the court found without good cause plaintiff’s counsel’s apparently timely request to not schedule argument in April and that defendant’s counsel yesterday filed a request to continue oral argument.  We don’t know what was in either counsel’s letter.

In addition to the continuance, the court added a new case to take Parrish‘s place on the April calendar:

Scher v. Burke:  Does Civil Code section 1009 preclude non-recreational use of non-coastal private property from ripening into an implied dedication of a public road?]


Leave a Reply