The Supreme Court has announced a seven-case late-May calendar.  May is the only month with two oral argument sessions.

Like all calendars since April 2020, and for the foreseeable future, May’s arguments will be remote and based in San Francisco.  (See herehere, here, and here.)  They will be live streamed, as all arguments have been since May 2016.

On May 18 and 19, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or stated by the court itself):

Natarajan v. Dignity Health:  Does a physician with privileges at a private hospital have the right to disqualify a hearing officer in a proceedings for revocation of those privileges based on an appearance of bias (see Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017) or must the physician show actual bias?  The court granted review in February 2020.  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy has filed an amicus brief in the case.]

Shalabi v. City of Fontana:  When the court granted review in August 2019, it limited the issue to:  “Code of Civil Procedure section 12 provides:  ‘The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day, and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded.’  In cases where the statute of limitations is tolled, is the first day after tolling ends included or excluded in calculating whether an action is timely filed?”  A month ago, the court directed supplemental briefing on “whether this court’s decision in Ganahl v. Soher (1884) 2 Cal.Unrep. 415, retains precedential authority in light of this court’s subsequent decision in Ganahl v. Soher (1885) 68 Cal. 95.”  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy has filed an amicus brief in the case.]

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC:  The court limited the issue to, “Did the Legislature intend the term ‘regular rate of compensation’ in Labor Code section 226.7, which requires employers to pay a wage premium if they fail to provide a legally compliant meal period or rest break, to have the same meaning and require the same calculations as the term ‘regular rate of pay’ under Labor Code section 510(a), which requires employers to pay a wage premium for each overtime hour?”  The court granted review in January 2020.

People v. Raybon:  Did Proposition 64 [the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act”] decriminalize the possession of up to 28.5 grams of marijuana by adults 21 years of age or older who are in state prison as well as those not in prison?  The court granted review in August 2019.

People v. Lewis:  The court limited the issues to:  “(1) May superior courts consider the record of conviction in determining whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95?  (2) When does the right to appointed counsel arise under Penal Code section 1170.95, subdivision (c)?”  The case involves Senate Bill 1437, which narrowed murder liability under the felony murder theory and the natural and probable consequences doctrine.  The court granted review in March 2020.  As of last week, there were 249 grant-and-hold cases waiting for a decision in Lewis.  (See here.)

Busker v. Wabtec Corp.:  In November 2018, the court agreed to answer this question posed by the Ninth Circuit:  “Whether work installing electrical equipment on locomotives and rail cars (i.e., the ‘onboard work’ for Metrolink’s PTC project) falls within the definition of ‘public works’ under California Labor Code § 1720(a)(1) either (a) as constituting ‘construction’ or ‘installation’ under the statute or (b) as being integral to other work performed for the PTC project on the wayside (i.e., the ‘field installation work’).”

Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding:  In March 2019, the court agreed to answer this question for the Ninth Circuit:  “Is operating engineers’ offsite ‘mobilization work’ — including the transportation to and from a public works site of roadwork grinding equipment — performed ‘in the execution of [a] contract for public work,’ Cal. Lab. Code §1772, such that it entitles workers to ‘not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed’ pursuant to section 1771 of the California Labor Code?”