Today is Day 429 since Justice Kathryn Werdegar announced her retirement from the Supreme Court, and the Governor has still not appointed her replacement. It’s also the day the court announced its late-May calendar, which will have 10 more pro tem justices (all not yet named) to compensate for the vacancy. This will be the 10th (!) straight calendar with pro tems and will bring to 81 (!) the number of cases with randomly selected pro tems filling Justice Werdegar’s seat. As mentioned before, pro tems pose a potential institutional problem.
Speaking of delay, the court is itself a little late in releasing its calendar. Notice is supposed to be given “at least 20 days before the argument date,” but the late-May arguments will be held just 18 and 19 days from today.
[Updated after noticing that calendar notices apparently went to the parties two days ago.]
On May 29 and 30, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or framed by the court itself):
Connor v. First Student, Inc.: Is the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Civ. Code, § 1786 et seq.) unconstitutionally vague as applied to background checks conducted on a company’s employees, because persons and entities subject to both that Act and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Civ. Code, §1785.1 et seq.) cannot determine which statute applies? The court granted review in November 2015.
Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board: (1) When a final decision of the Public Employment Relations Board under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. Code, § § 3500 et seq.) is challenged in the Court of Appeal, what standard of review applies to the Board’s interpretation of the applicable statutes and its findings of fact? (2) Is a public agency’s duty to “meet and confer” under the Act limited to situations in which the agency’s governing body proposes to take formal action affecting employee wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment? The court granted review in July 2017.
Kim v. Toyota Motor Corporation: Did the trial court commit reversible error in admitting, as relevant to the risk-benefit test for design defect, evidence of industry custom and practice related to the alleged defect? The court granted review in April 2016. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief in this case.]
King v. CompPartners, Inc.: (1) Is a claim by an injured worker for medical malpractice brought against a workers’ compensation utilization review company barred by workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy? (2) Does a workers’ compensation utilization review company that performs medical utilization reviews on behalf of employers owe a duty of care to an injured worker? (3) Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that plaintiffs should be given leave to amend their complaint in this case? The court granted review in April 2016.
People v. Powell (Troy Lincoln): This is an automatic direct appeal from a September 2005 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
People v. Woodruff: This is an automatic direct appeal from an April 2003 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey: Can the electorate use the referendum process to challenge a municipality’s zoning designation for an area, which was changed to conform to the municipality’s amended general plan, when the result of the referendum — if successful — would leave intact the existing zoning designation that does not conform to the amended general plan? The court granted review in August 2017.
Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of Redding: (1) Is a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) transferred from the city utility to the city general fund a “tax” under Proposition 26 (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (1)(e))? (2) Does the exception for “reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product” apply to the PILOT (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (1)(e)(2))? (3) Does the PILOT predate Proposition 26? The court granted review in April 2015.
People v. Gonzales: The court granted review on its own motion in this case, in February 2017, and limited the issue to this: “What relationship, if any, must exist between convictions for forgery and identity theft in order to exclude a forgery conviction from sentencing as a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 473, subdivision (b)?”
People v. Powell (Carl Devon): This is an automatic direct appeal from a November 1994 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals. It appears that Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is recused from this case because she was a trial judge in Sacramento County when this case was tried there.
[Updated: Pro tems assigned for late-May calendar, some of them back more quickly than expected.]
