The Supreme Court today announced it will hear eight cases on its June calendar.

When they’re finished with those arguments, the justices will have heard 59 cases for the term. Opinions in all those cases either have already been filed or should file by the end of August. There will thus be only several more opinions this term than last term’s historic low of 55 (see here), but it is a marked increase in output — an increase predicted by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero — from just a few months ago when the court was on a pace to file less than 40 opinions for the term (see here and here).

[May 16 update: last term’s 55 opinions might have been historically low, as in fewer opinions than the average, but it was not the lowest. In the 2021-2022 term, the court issued only 49 opinions. (See here.)]

Four of the cases will have pro tem justices because of recusals. That’s a large number.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, June 4 and 5, in Los Angeles, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):

In re Dezi C.: What constitutes reversible error when a child welfare agency fails to make the statutorily required inquiry concerning a child’s potential Indian ancestry? This is one of several cases on the court’s docket concerning the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and complementary California legislation; the court is hearing one of those — In re Kenneth week. The court granted review in Dezi C. in September 2022. More about the case here.

Stone v. Alameda Health System: (1) Are all public entities exempt from the obligations in the Labor Code regarding meal and rest breaks, overtime, and payroll records, or only those public entities that satisfy the “hallmarks of sovereignty” standard adopted by the Court of Appeal in this case? (2) Does the exemption from the prompt payment statutes in Labor Code section 220, subdivision (b), for “employees directly employed by any county, incorporated city, or town or other municipal corporation” include all public entities that exercise governmental functions? (3) Do the civil penalties available under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, codified at Labor Code section 2698 et seq., apply to public entities? The court granted review in May 2023. Justice Kelli Evans is recused; Second District, Division Seven, Court of Appeal Justice John Segal is the pro tem in her place. More about the case here.

In re Tellez: A week after the court granted review in January 2023, the court directed the parties to brief these questions: “(1) Does constitutionally effective assistance of counsel require defense counsel to advise a defendant that a guilty plea may subject the defendant to commitment proceedings under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.; SVPA)? If so, did petitioner in this case suffer prejudice? (2) In the alternative, should this Court, in the exercise of its supervisory powers (see, e.g., People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1175; Bunnell v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592, 605), require that a defendant be advised that a guilty plea may subject him to SVPA commitment proceedings? If so, is petitioner entitled to relief?” More about the case here.

People v. Williams: The court limited the issue to: “Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults convicted and sentenced for serious sex crimes under the One Strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61) from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults convicted of first degree murder are entitled to such consideration?” This is one of the oldest cases on the court’s docket. (See here.) The court granted review in July 2020. Justice Evans is recused; Fifth District Justice M. Bruce Smith is the pro tem in her place. More about the case here.

Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc.: The court is expected to answer the Ninth Circuit’s question, “Under California law, are claims for fraudulent concealment exempted from the economic loss rule?” Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, supporting the defendant. The court agreed in February 2022 to answer the question. More about the case here and here.

JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC: (1) What analytical framework should be applied in determining the enforceability of co-tenancy provisions in retail lease agreements? (2) Did the Court of Appeal correctly determine that the co-tenancy provision in this case is enforceable? The court granted review in October 2022. More about the case here.

[June 4 update: Yesterday, defendant’s counsel filed an emergency request for a continuance and the court found “extraordinary cause to continue oral argument.” (See: What’s good cause to put off an oral argument?] The court said the case will be “continued to a future oral argument date to be determined.”]

City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers: Is a court’s authority to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process limited to circumstances expressly delineated in a method-specific provision of the Civil Discovery Act, or do courts have independent authority to impose monetary sanctions for such discovery misconduct, including under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030? The case involves a $2,500,000 sanction. Justice Joshua Groban is recused; Fifth District Justice Mark Snauffer is the pro tem in his place. The court granted review in January 2023. More about the case here.

Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale: The court limited the issue to: “Did the Court of Appeal correctly dismiss the appeal as untimely?” Chief Justice Guerrero is recused (when she was a justice on the Fourth District, Division One, she concurred in the Court of Appeal opinion under review); Fourth District, Division Three, Justice Maurice Sanchez is the pro tem in her place. The court granted review in June 2022. More about the case here.

Briefs for the cases will soon be posted here. The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by August 29.