An updated list of old cases [Updated]

As the Supreme Court is expected to announce its next round of oral arguments this week, it’s as good a time as any to update the list of the oldest, unargued, non-capital cases on the court’s docket.  Of the 10 cases on our last list — published in August 2025 — only two remain.

To identify the cases, we look for the matters with the lowest case numbers on the court’s pending issues summaries.  The top 10 oldies (in order of when the petition for review was filed), are:

1. 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.  The court sent its oral argument letter in September 2025.  It has found good cause to support one counsel’s subsequent requests for argument not to be set on multiple potential calendar dates.  More about the case here.
2. People v. 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.  The court sent its oral argument letter last month.  Earlier this month, the court directed supplemental briefing regarding this:  “Assuming for the sake of argument that Defendant has established error, has she demonstrated a ‘reasonable probability’ that she would not have pled guilty had she ‘correctly understood [the] actual or potential immigration consequences’ of doing so (People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529)?” More about the case here and here.
3. In re Spielbauer on Discipline — This one gets an asterisk, as the case will likely be argued on the early-May calendar after having been continued from the April calendar based on a finding of “extraordinary cause.”  The court granted review in July 2024, eight months after the petition for review’s filing.  The issue as summarized by court staff is: “If a victim of attorney misconduct suffers damages recoverable in tort and incurs attorney fees as a result of the misconduct, under what circumstances may the State Bar Court order restitution based on such damages and fees as a condition of the attorney’s probation? (See Sorensen v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1036.)”  Party briefing was completed in November 2024.  The response to an amicus brief (it’s a Horvitz & Levy amicus brief) was filed in January 2025.  The court sent its oral argument letter in January.  More about the case here.
4. Gilead Tenofovir Cases — the court granted review in May 2024.  The issue as summarized by court staff is:  “Does a drug manufacturer have a duty of reasonable care to users of a drug it is currently selling, which is not alleged to be defective, when making decisions about the commercialization of an allegedly safer, and at least equally effective, alternative drug?”  Party briefing was completed in October 2024.  Responses to (many) amicus curiae briefs were filed in January 2025.  The court sent its oral argument letter in February.  More about the case here.
5. Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County — the court granted review in April 2024.  The issue as summarized by court staff is:  “For purposes of calculating retirement benefits for members of County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) retirement systems, does Government Code section 31461, subdivision (b)(2) exclude payments for accrued, but unused hours of annual leave that would exceed the maximum amount of leave that was earnable and payable in a calendar year?”  Party briefing was completed in October 2024.  The response to amicus curiae briefs was filed in December 2024.  The court sent its oral argument letter in March, and it found good cause for a counsel request not to set the case for argument on the late-May calendar.  More about the case here.
6. Cohen v. Superior Court — the court granted review in September 2024.  The court limited the issue to:  “Does Government Code section 36900, subdivision (a) confer upon private citizens a right to redress violations of municipal ordinances?”  But 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 and here.)  Briefing has been leisurely.  Party briefing wasn’t completed until November 2025.  Tomorrow is the extended deadline to file a response to an amicus curiae brief (not the Horvitz & Levy brief).  No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here.
7. People v. Meno — the court granted review in September 2024.  The issue as summarized by court staff is:  “Does a trial court have discretion to dismiss either the greater or lesser included offense involving the same conduct of driving under the influence causing death in order to avoid the prohibition against multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses?”  Party briefing was completed in May 2025.  A response to an amicus curiae brief was file in August 2025.  No oral argument letter has been sent.  More about the case here.
8. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assn. v. County of Los Angeles — the court granted review in October 2024.  The issues as summarized by court staff are:  “(1) Does the board of a county public employee retirement system established under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL) (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) have authority under the California Constitution and relevant statutes to create employment classifications and set salaries for employees of the retirement system? (2) Does Government Code section 31522.1 impose a ministerial duty on a county board of supervisors to include in the county’s employment classifications and salary ordinance the classifications and salaries adopted by the board of a county public employee retirement system for employees of that system? (3) Do Proposition 162 (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17) and CERL override a county board of supervisors’ constitutional authority to establish civil service classifications, set salaries, and maintain a civil service system for county employees under article XI of the California Constitution?”  Party briefing was completed in March 2025.  Responses to amicus curiae briefs were filed in May 2025.  The court sent its oral argument letter in January.  More about the case here.
9. Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court — the court granted review in September 2024.  The issue as summarized by court staff is:  “(1) Does the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) bar a social media company from disclosing an individual’s account information in response to a criminal defendant’s subpoena? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by finding that good cause supported the subpoena for third-party discovery?”  Party briefing was completed in January 2025.  Responses to amicus curiae briefs were filed in March and April 2025.  No oral argument letter has been sent.  More about the case here.  [Updated:  Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in the case.]
10. People v. Esquivias — the court granted review in October 2024.  The issue as summarized by court staff is:  “Does the issuance of an order to show cause to review one aspect of a defendant’s sentence in habeas corpus proceedings render applicable all ameliorative laws taking effect after the defendant’s judgment became final?”  Party briefing was completed in September 2025.  The response to an amicus curiae brief was filed in February.  The court sent its oral argument letter in March.  More about the case here.