The Supreme Court today announced a seven-case June calendar. These will be the last oral arguments until September, as there are no hearings in July or August.
Like all calendars since April 2020, and for the foreseeable future, June’s arguments will be remote and based in San Francisco. (See here, here, here, and here.) They will be live streamed, as all arguments have been since May 2016.
On June 1 and 2, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or stated by the court itself):
Daly v. Board of Supervisors: The court limited the issue to: “Did plaintiffs properly challenge real party in interest’s appointment as Third District Supervisor by a petition for writ of mandate under Government Code section 54960.1, subdivision (a), or was an action in quo warranto (Code Civ. Proc., § 803 et seq.) the exclusive procedure for such a challenge?” The court granted review in February 2020.
Gonzalez v. Mathis: Can a homeowner who hires an independent contractor be held liable in tort for injury sustained by the contractor’s employee when the homeowner does not retain control over the worksite and the hazard causing the injury was known to the contractor? The court granted review in May 2018. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief in the case.]
Walker v. Superior Court: Did the superior court violate the rule of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 — that an expert cannot relate case-specific hearsay unless the facts are independently proved or covered by a hearsay exception — by relying on case-specific hearsay contained in psychological evaluations in finding probable cause to commit petitioner under the Sexually Violent Predator Act? The court granted review in September 2020.
Skidgel v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board: Are In Home Supportive Services workers (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 12300 et seq.) who are providers for a spouse or a child eligible for unemployment insurance benefits? The court granted review in September 2018.
People v. Wycoff: This is an automatic direct appeal from a December 2009 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel was appointed in May 2013. Briefing was completed in February 2017.
McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance: (1) Were the provisions of Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 intended by the Legislature to apply, in whole or in part, to life insurance policies in force as of January 1, 2013, regardless of the original date of issuance of those policies? (2) Did the lower courts in this case properly rely upon private opinions of Department of Insurance staff counsel? (See Ins. Code, § 12921.9; Gov. Code, § 11340.5; Heckart v. A-J Self Storage, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 749 [see here].) Review was granted in January 2020. Just three months ago, the court invited the Insurance Commissioner to file an amicus curiae brief.
People v. McDaniel: This is an automatic direct appeal from a March 2009 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel was appointed in September 2012. Initial briefing was completed in May 2017. [Update: Death penalty appeal on the June calendar could be a momentous one.]