After scheduling 12 cases for its late-May calendar, the Supreme Court has now ordered five oral arguments in early June. Those 17 arguments over the two-week period is a bit more than at the same time last year, but still short of the blockbuster 25 cases heard in late May and early June of 2012. And, because of the continued vacancy on the court, five more Court of Appeal justices will sitting as pro tems on the June calendar.
On June 3 and 4, in Los Angeles, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue(s) presented as stated on the court’s website):
Steen v. Appellate Division: Whether petitioner’s misdemeanor conviction for failure to appear in court on a traffic infraction should be vacated on the ground that Penal Code section 959.1, subdivision (c)(1), violates the separation of powers doctrine (Cal. Const., art. III, section 3) by permitting a clerk of court, rather than a prosecutor, to issue a complaint “for the offenses of failure to appear, pay a fine, or comply with an order of the court.” The court asked for supplemental briefing regarding (1) whether Penal Code section 959.1, subdivision (c), violates due process (see U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7), and (2) whether the prosecution in this case was not commenced within the statute of limitations (see Pen. Code, §§ 802, subd. (a), 804). (First District, Division Three Justice Peter Siggins is the pro tem.)
This case is an oldie. It’s an original proceeding in which the Supreme Court issued its order to show cause more than four and a half years ago. It’s been 20 months since the court asked for supplemental briefing.
People v. Banks: [This is an automatic appeal from a July 1999 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.] (Second District, Division Two Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst is the pro tem.)
Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.: The court will answer this question at the Ninth Circuit’s request: May an employer, consistent with California’s compensation requirements, allocate an employee’s commission payments to the pay periods for which they were earned? (With a pro tem to be named later.)
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza LLC: Whether the defendant franchisor is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that it is vicariously liable for tortious conduct by a supervising employee of a franchisee. (With a pro tem to be named later.)
People v. Chandler: Did the trial court err by failing to instruct the jury that the crime of attempting to make a criminal threat – like the completed crime of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422) – requires that it be reasonable under the circumstances for the victim to have been in sustained fear? (With a pro tem to be named later.)
[May 13 update: the pro tems to be named later have now been named in two cases:
Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. — Third District Justice M. Kathleen Butz.
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza LLC — Second District, Division One Justice Victoria Gerrard Chaney.]
[May 14 update: the pro tem for People v. Chandler will be Second District, Division Two Justice Victoria Chavez. The amended calendar is here.]
