August 7, 2013
Summer’s over: Supreme Court announces September calendar, including high-profile bar admissions case
Earlier today, we said the Supreme Court would announce its September calendar within seven days. Within seven hours would have been more accurate. This afternoon, the court posted the cases it will hear on September 4 and 5 in San Francisco.
One is the high-profile case of whether Sergio Garcia — an undocumented immigrant who has graduated from law school and passed the California bar exam — can be admitted to practice law in the state. The court also today entered an unusual order regarding the argument. Mr. Garcia and the Committee of Bar Examiners will share 30 minutes of argument time to advocate for Mr. Garcia’s admission. Additionally, the court has invited the California Attorney General, who is an amicus curiae supporting Mr. Garcia, to present 10 minutes of oral argument, and it has invited the United States Department of Justice, an amicus opposing Mr. Garcia’s admission to the bar, to present 30 minutes of argument. The briefing for the case is on the court’s website.
The court will hear the following cases in September (with the issue(s) presented as stated on the court’s website):
In re Garcia on Admission: (1) Does 8 U.S.C. section 1621(c) apply and preclude this court’s admission of an undocumented immigrant to the State Bar of California? Does any other statute, regulation, or authority preclude the admission? (2) Is there any state legislation that provides – as specifically authorized by 8 U.S.C. section 1621(d) – that undocumented immigrants are eligible for professional licenses in fields such as law, medicine, or other professions, and, if not, what significance, if any, should be given to the absence of such legislation? (3) Does the issuance of a license to practice law impliedly represent that the licensee may be legally employed as an attorney? (4) If licensed, what are the legal and public policy limitations, if any, on an undocumented immigrant’s ability to practice law? (5) What, if any, other public policy concerns arise with a grant of this application?
Kurwa v. Kislinger: Was the judgment in this case, which dismissed most of the causes of action with prejudice and the remainder, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, without prejudice and with a waiver of the applicable statute of limitations, an appealable judgment? [Disclosure: The California Academy of Appellate Lawyers submitted an amicus curiae brief in this case. A number of Horvitz & Levy attorneys are Academy members and Horvitz & Levy’s Jon Eisenberg is one of a number of Academy members whose names are on the brief.]
Valdez v. W.C.A.B.: Does Labor Code section 4616.6 exclude from evidence reports of a treating physician obtained by an applicant outside of his or her employer’s Medical Provider Network?
Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto: Did the 90-day statute of limitations for challenging an agency decision under the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code. § 66499.37) or the 180-day statute of limitations for challenging the imposition of “any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project” (Gov. Code, § 66020) apply to plaintiff’s action challenging the city’s imposition of conditions on a development project pursuant to a local ordinance?
People v. Contreras: [This is an automatic appeal from a December 1996 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]
People v. Manibusan: [This is an automatic appeal from a January 2001 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]
Harrison v. Board of Parole Hearings: Are the evaluation and certification requirements of Penal Code section 2962, subdivision (d), substantive requirements for the initial commitment of a mentally disorder offender that must be admitted by the offender or found true by the trier of fact?