After its traditional two-month break from oral arguments, the Supreme 
Court will hear 8 arguments (in 9 cases) in September. Several of the cases were continued from the late-May or June calendars.
On September 7 and 8, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):
Kesner v. Superior Court and Haver v. BNSF Railway Company: If an employer’s business involves either the use or the manufacture of asbestos-containing products, does the employer owe a duty of care to members of an employee’s household who could be affected by asbestos brought home on the employee’s clothing?
These two cases were consolidated for argument and opinion, and the argument was continued from the June calendar. The argument will be 80 minutes, instead of the normal 60, with each party having 20 minutes, instead of the normal 30, to argue.
[Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy is appellate counsel for real party in interest Pneumo Abex LLC in the Kesner case.]
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.: (1) Do Labor Code, § 226.7, and Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 4-2001 require that employees be relieved of all duties during rest breaks? (2) Are security guards who remain on call during rest breaks performing work during that time under the analysis of Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 833?
[Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief in the Augustus case on behalf of the United States Chamber of Commerce.]
Maas v. Superior Court: Does Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 permit a peremptory challenge to be asserted, before an order to show cause has issued, against a judge who is assigned to assess a petition for writ of habeas corpus?
Review was granted on the court’s own motion in this case.
The argument was continued from the late-May calendar.
People v. Thompson: This is an automatic appeal from a June 1993 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
People v. Williams: This is an automatic appeal from a February 2005 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
Horiike v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage: When the buyer and the seller in a residential real estate transaction are each independently represented by a different salesperson from the same brokerage firm, does Civil Code section 2079.13, subdivision (b), make each salesperson the fiduciary to both the buyer and the seller with the duty to provide undivided loyalty, confidentiality, and counseling to both?
The argument was continued from the June calendar.
[Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy is lead appellate counsel for Horiike.]
Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc.: (1) Does the delegation — by a health care service plan (HMO) to an independent physicians association (IPA), under Health and Safety Code section 1371.4, subdivision (e) — of the HMO’s responsibility to reimburse emergency medical service providers for emergency care provided to the HMO’s enrollees relieve the HMO of the ultimate obligation to pay for emergency medical care provided to its enrollees by non-contracting emergency medical service providers, if the IPA becomes insolvent and is unable to pay? (2) Does an HMO have a duty to emergency medical service providers to protect them from financial harm resulting from the insolvency of an IPA which is otherwise financially responsible for the emergency medical care provided to its enrollees?
In February, the court invited the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) to serve and file an amicus curiae brief expressing its views on the following two-part question: In light of the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Health & Saf. Code, § 1340 et seq.) and the DMHC’s implementing regulations, does a health care service plan owe a common law tort duty of care to non-contracting emergency service providers, who provide emergency care on a statutorily compelled basis to the health plan’s enrollees, in either (1) making or (2) continuing a delegation of its financial responsibility for payment of the providers’ claims to an individual practice association?
People v. Winbush: This is an automatic appeal from a July 2003 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
