This is the second part of a recap of the many notable actions the Supreme Court took at its double conference on Wednesday. Part I is here.
Late arbitration fees grant-and-hold
Yazdi v. San Diego County Credit Union, an employment case, is another grant-and-hold for Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (see here), in which the court is expected to address whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state statutes prescribing the procedures for paying arbitration fees and providing for forfeiture of the right to arbitrate if timely payment is not made by the party who drafted the arbitration agreement and who is required to pay the fees. Hohenshelt was argued last week.
In Yazdi, the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal unpublished opinion didn’t decide the preemption issue because it held the defendant had forfeited the issue by not raising it in the superior court. Additionally, Division One rejected on the merits the defendant’s argument that it had actually made a timely payment of the arbitration fees.
Capital appeal transferred after sentence reduction
The death penalty appeal in People v. Williams was transferred to the Court of Appeal after the defendant was resentenced to life without parole. Had the defendant unsuccessfully sought resentencing and appealed, the case might have stayed in the Supreme Court to decide the propriety of the resentencing denial. (See the discussion of People v. Mataele here.)
Racial Justice Act OSC
The court issued an order to show cause before the superior court on a pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Moore. Cause is to be shown “why the petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel under the Racial Justice Act. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (e) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who alleges facts constituting a violation of the Racial Justice Act].)”
Gang enhancement OSC
In another pro per habeas corpus petition, In re Jimenez, the court issued an order to show cause before the Court of Appeal “why relief should not be granted on the ground petitioner’s enhancements for committing the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) must be vacated pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 333 (Stats. 2021, ch. 699).”
Ineffective counsel OSC
Ruling on a habeas corpus petition in In re Aguilar that was filed almost 19 months ago, the court issued an order to show cause before the superior court “why trial counsel was not ineffective in his failure to 1) impeach a government witness, Anthony Warren, with evidence that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, as described in Claim B.2, 2) admit court records showing that Aylwin Johnson and Anthony Warren were incarcerated at the same time in in Stanislaus County Jail, as described in Claim B.4, and 3) object to the prosecutor’s false statement during closing argument that Warren and Johnson were never in custody together, as described in Claim B.8, and why petitioner is not entitled to relief on grounds of the cumulative effect of errors and assumed errors as alleged in Claim C of his petition.”
Denial in boxing referee discrimination case
The court denied review in Hedgpeth v. California State Athletic Commission. A Second District, Division Five, unpublished opinion held to be not actionable under the Unruh Civil Rights Act a claim that the Athletic Commission’s executive officer assigned — based on race — white referees for championship boxing matches instead of the non-white plaintiffs. Division Five concluded that the commission and its executive officer were not “business establishments” subject to the Act. “[T]he commission, which serves a primarily regulatory function, does not act as a ‘business establishment’ when it assigns referees to boxing matches,” the court concluded.
Writ of mandate depublication denied
The court denied three depublication requests in Siskiyou Hospital v. County of Siskiyou. The Third District’s opinion affirmed the denial of a hospital’s writ petition seeking to prevent a county from bringing to the hospital patients needing emergency psychiatric care but not physical emergency care.
A depublication request filed by the Western Center on Law & Poverty claimed the opinion “threatens the continuing ability of low-income Californians to hold government agencies accountable for illegal policies through petitions for writs of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085.” Other requests were filed by the California Hospital Association and by the hospital itself.
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were 28 criminal case grant-and-holds: 25 of them are waiting for a decision in People v. Rhodius (see here), which was argued last month; one more is holding for People v. Morris (see here); and two more are on hold for People v. Eaton (see here).
Grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
Three cases that had been holding for the August prejudicial-sentencing-error decision in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (see here) were returned to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Lynch and Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821.
One case was a grant-and-hold first for the pretrial-diversion opinion in People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791 (see here) and then for Lynch and the resentencing decision in People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 (see here). The court sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Lynch and Salazar.
Another case, with two defendants, was holding for Lynch and for the finality of the death penalty appeal in People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 (see here). The court dismissed review as to one defendant and returned the case to the Court of Appeal as to the other defendant for reconsideration in light of Lynch.
