The Supreme Court yesterday announced a four-case April calendar.
Because of Justice Martin Jenkins’s October retirement, there will be — for the sixth straight month — a Court of Appeal justice sitting pro tem in each case. The pro tems will be named later. (See: Why does the Supreme Court use pro tems?)
The court is on pace to hear arguments in just 41 cases this term. With decisions filed or expected in an additional seven cases that were argued last term, the 48 total opinions for the term would be another historically low output. (See here.) The court issued 45 opinions last term. (See here.)
On Monday April 6, in Los Angeles, the court will hear these cases (with the issue or issues presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):
Sunflower Alliance v. California Department of Conservation: The court limited the issues to: “(1) May an agency claim a categorical exemption from environmental review under [the California Environmental Quality Act] while also adopting conditions of approval relating to potential environmental effects? (2) Does the term ‘negligible’ in the California Environmental Quality Act’s Class 1 existing facilities exemption (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15301) pertain to a negligible change in use or to a change that presents a negligible risk of environmental harm?” The court granted review in December 2024. More about the case here.
Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified School District: “(1) Did the plaintiffs’ second voluntary dismissal of their federal court action preclude a subsequent state court action based on the same claims? (2) Did the defendant’s assertion of sovereign immunity over plaintiffs’ state law claims in federal court divest that court of subject matter jurisdiction over those claims?” The court granted review in April 2024. More about the case here. Horvitz & Levy is Supreme Court counsel for the school district.
People v. Cofer: “When a defendant is sentenced to concurrent terms on multiple cases jointly resolved at a single hearing, does Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (b) entitle the defendant to duplicative presentence custody credits for time spent in custody on one or more of the cases, but not others?” The court granted review in October 2024. More about the case here.
In re Spielbauer on Discipline: “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.)” The court granted review in July 2024. More about the case here.
Briefs for the cases will soon be posted here. The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by July 2.
