A partially new list of old cases

The Supreme Court made some progress this term in hearing old cases. Of the 11 cases on our February list of the oldest, unargued, non-capital matters on its docket, the court heard arguments in four.

With no arguments in July and August, as usual, and the court likely to publish its September calendar in two weeks, this seemed like a good time to update the list.

First, the old cases that were argued:

1. Taking Offense v. State of California — number 2 on the February list; argued in early May, but the opinion will be delayed by post-argument briefing (see here).
2. People v. Faial  — number 3; argued in early May; opinion filed last week (see here).
3. Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles — number 4; argued in late May, but, like Taking Offense, the opinion will be delayed by post-argument briefing (see here).
4. Iloff v. LaPaille — number 6; argued in June; the opinion is due by August 28.

Now, the new top 10. To identify the cases, we look for the matters with the lowest case numbers on the court’s pending issues summaries. They are:

1. People v. Kopp — Yes, Kopp is still waiting to be argued. And it’s still the oldest case on the list by far. The court granted review well over five years ago, in November 2019, and it limited the issues to:  “Must a court consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing or executing fines, fees, and assessments?  If so, which party bears the burden of proof regarding defendant’s inability to pay?” Party briefing was completed in January 2021. Amicus briefing was completed in December 2021. (Horvitz & Levy is co-counsel for amicus UC Irvine law school’s Consumer Law Clinic.) In October 2023, the defendant moved to stay the appeal and for a limited remand or, in the alternative, for calendar preference. There’s been no ruling on the motion. The court sent its oral argument letter in September of last year. In October, the court assigned a pro tem justice to replace an unidentified recused justice. More about the case here.
2. Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County v. Gascón — the court granted review in August 2022. The issues as summarized by court staff are: “(1) Does the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12) violate the separation of powers doctrine by requiring prosecutors to plead and prove prior qualifying felony convictions? (2) If there is a duty to plead prior qualifying convictions, is mandamus the proper remedy to compel a prosecutor to act?” Party briefing was completed in March 2023. Responses to amicus briefs were filed in June 2023. Horvitz & Levy filed one of the amicus briefs in the case, supporting the plaintiff Association. No oral argument letter has been sent. But the case might never be decided because the plaintiff Association moved in December 2024 to dismiss review as moot. The still-pending motion relies on the newly elected Los Angeles County District Attorney’s rescinding of his predecessor’s Three Strikes policy that is at issue in the case. (See here.) More about the case here, here, and here.
3. People v. Mitchell — the court granted review in December 2022. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements?” Briefing was completed in June 2023. No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here.
4. Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A. — the court granted review in February 2023. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “Under California law, are employers permitted to use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees’ work time for payroll purposes?” Party briefing was completed in September 2023. The response to amicus curiae briefing was filed in December 2023. No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here.
5. Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc. — the court granted review in February 2023. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “Must a homeowner exhaust administrative tax remedies by filing a claim for a refund with an assessment board before filing an action asserting consumer protection claims against private entities involved in the implementation of a loan program in which the loans are repaid through assessments on the property and the local government acquires a tax lien on the property?” Party briefing was completed in September 2023. The last response to amicus curiae briefing was filed in March 2024. The court sent its oral argument letter in December 2024. More about the case here.
6. Zhang v. Superior Court — The court granted review in February 2023. The issues as summarized by court staff are: “(1) If an employer files a motion to compel arbitration in a non-California forum pursuant to a contractual forum-selection clause, and an employee raises as a defense Labor Code section 925, which prohibits an employer from requiring a California employee to agree to a provision requiring the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California, is the court in the non-California forum one of ‘competent jurisdiction’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4) such that the motion to compel requires a mandatory stay of the California proceedings? (2) Does the presence of a delegation clause in an employment contract delegating issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator prohibit a California court from enforcing Labor Code section 925 in opposition to the employer’s stay motion?” Party briefing was completed in July 2023. An amicus curiae brief was filed one month later. The court sent its oral argument letter in March of this year. More about the case here.
7. In re Kowalczyk — The court granted review in March 2023 and limited the issues to: “(1) Which constitutional provision governs the denial of bail in noncapital cases — article I, section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), or article I, section 28, subdivision (f)(3), of the California Constitution — or, in the alternative, can these provisions be reconciled? (2) May a superior court ever set pretrial bail above an arrestee’s ability to pay?” Party briefing was completed in October 2023. The response to extensive amicus curiae briefing was filed in January 2024. The court sent its oral argument letter three weeks ago. More about the case here.
8. Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. — The court granted review in August 2023. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “Is the form arbitration agreement that the employer here required prospective employees to sign as a condition of employment unenforceable against an employee due to unconscionability?” Party briefing was completed in March 2024 and responses to amicus curiae briefs were filed in May 2024. The court sent its oral argument letter in March of this year. More about the case here.
9. Raju v. Superior Court — The court granted review in September 2023. The issues as summarized by court staff are: “(1) Does a taxpayer have standing to pursue a civil action against a superior court based on its alleged failure to expedite and prioritize criminal cases? (2) If so, may such an action be based on Penal Code section 1049.5 or 1050?” Party briefing was completed in February 2024. The response to amicus curiae briefing was filed in May 2024. No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here.
10. In re Hernandez — The court granted review in December 2023. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “Does the totality of the circumstances establish that defendant meaningfully understood the immigration consequences of her plea?” Party briefing was completed in May 2024. The response to amicus briefing was filed in August 2024. No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here and here.