September 9, 2016

October calendar will have eight arguments [Updated]

The Supreme Court has announced its October calendar, arguments we at first thought wouldn’t take place.

On October 5 and 6, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):

Association of California Insurance Companies v. Jones:  (1) Does the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code, § 790, et seq.) give the Insurance Commissioner authority to promulgate a regulation that sets forth requirements for communicating replacement value and states that noncompliance with the regulation constitutes a misleading statement, and therefore an unfair trade practice, for purposes of the act?  (2) Does the Insurance Commissioner have the statutory authority to promulgate a regulation specifying that the communication of a replacement cost estimate that omits one or more of the components in subdivisions (a)-(e) of section 2695.183 of title 10 of the California Code of Regulations is a “misleading” statement with respect to the business of insurance? (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 10, § 2695.183, subd. (j).)

People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.:  (1) Should the good cause standard under Penal Code section 1305.4 for extension of the period to exonerate bail require a demonstration of a reasonable likelihood of success of returning a fugitive?  (2) When a court finds there has been a diligent investigation to locate a fugitive, does the burden shift under Penal Code section 1305.4 to the People to prove that there is not a reasonable likelihood of success of returning the fugitive?  (3) Does an extension of the period to exonerate bail under Penal Code section 1305.4 commence on the date on which the initial 180-day period expires or on the date on which the trial court grants the extension?

Raceway Ford Cases:  (1) Does the inclusion of inapplicable smog check and smog certification fees in an automobile purchase contract violate the Automobile Sales Finance Act (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.)?  (2) Does backdating a second or subsequent finance agreement to the date of the first finance agreement for purchase of a vehicle violate the Act?

Harris v. Superior Court:  (1) Are the People entitled to withdraw from a plea agreement for conviction of a lesser offense and to reinstate any dismissed counts if the defendant files a petition for recall of sentence and reduction of the conviction to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47?  (2) If the defendant seeks such relief, are the parties returned to the status quo with no limits on the sentence that can be imposed on the ground that the defendant has repudiated the plea agreement by doing so?

People v. Melendez:  This is an automatic appeal from an August 2003 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.

People v. Landry:  This is an automatic appeal from a September 2001 (9/11, to be exact) judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.

County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court:  Are invoices for legal services sent to the County of Los Angeles by outside counsel within the scope of the attorney-client privilege and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, even with all references to attorney opinions, advice and similar information redacted?
[Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel.]

McGill v. Citibank, N.A.:  Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 321, preempt the California rule (Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066; Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303) that statutory claims for public injunctive relief are not subject to compulsory private arbitration?
[Justice Carol Corrigan is recused.  Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal Justice Judith Haller will be sitting pro tem.]
[Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in this case, too, on behalf of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel.]

[September 16 update:  There have been a few changes in the calendar.  Two cases have been continued, Association of California Insurance Companies to November and McGill to December.  One case has been added.  On October 5, the court will hear argument in People v. Mickel, an automatic appeal from an April 2005 judgment of death.]

Leave a Reply