The Supreme Court announced it will hear arguments in five cases next month.
Because of Justice Jenkins’s October 2025 retirement, and Governor Newsom’s long delay in filling the vacancy, there will be — for the 12th straight calendar — a Court of Appeal justice sitting pro tem in each case. Two of the pro tems will be named later. (See: Why does the Supreme Court use pro tems?; cf.: Pro tem casts deciding vote in public employee retirement board case.)
On Election Day, Tuesday, November 3, in San Francisco, the court will hear these cases (with the issue or issues presented as summarized by court staff or, if indicated, limited by the court itself):
People v. Eaton: “May a trial court reimpose a previously imposed upper term sentence under Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) where the facts underlying one or more aggravating circumstances were neither stipulated to by the defendant nor found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial (cf. Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b)(2); id., § 1172.75, subd. (d)(2))?” The court granted review in May 2025. More about the case here. The pro tem justice has not yet been assigned.
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.: When the court granted review in April 2025, it limited the issues to: “1.) Does every Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA) action necessarily include both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims? 2.) Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action?” More about the case here, here, and here. Third District Justice Peter A. Krause is the pro tem.
Cash v. County of Los Angeles: “(1) Did the trial court’s across-the-board reduction of the fees requested by plaintiff’s counsel trigger heightened scrutiny of its fee order on appeal? (2) Did the trial court commit reversible error in reducing the fee request on an across-the-board basis?” The court granted review in August 2025. More about the case here. Fourth District, Division One, Presiding Justice Judith McConnell is the pro tem. Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief in the case.
Cohen v. Superior Court: When the court granted review in September 2024, it limited the issue to: “Does Government Code section 36900, subdivision (a) confer upon private citizens a right to redress violations of municipal ordinances?” An amicus brief primarily drafted by Horvitz & Levy asks the court to also resolve a conflict “whether [a Court of Appeal] may overrule prior decisions from the same district or division, or whether they may only disagree with such decisions.” (See here.) More about the case here and here. The pro tem justice has not yet been assigned.
People v. Mataele: “This case presents issues relating to the noncapital resentencing of a capital defendant following remand.” When the court transferred the appeal to itself in May 2025, its transfer order stated, “In addition to any issues raised on appeal concerning the resentencing proceeding below, the parties are directed to brief and argue whether this court has exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal, or whether this appeal may be decided by the Court of Appeal. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); People v. Coleman (1991) 53 Cal.3d 949, 951, fn. 1.)” More about the case here. Fifth District Presiding Justice Brad Hill is the pro tem.
Briefs for the cases will soon be posted here. The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by February 1.
