The Supreme Court announced it will hear arguments in three cases in November, but first it will conduct a session in memory of former Justice Joseph Grodin, who died in April. Because of Justice Martin Jenkins’s impending retirement, there will be a Court of Appeal justice sitting pro tem on each case.
On Tuesday, November 4, in San Francisco, the court will hear these cases (with the issue or issues presented as summarized by court staff or, when stated, as limited by the court itself):
Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.: “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?” This is on our recent list of oldest unargued non-capital cases on the court’s docket. Review was granted in August 2023. First District, Division Two, Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Therese M. Stewart will be the pro tem. More about the case here.
City of Gilroy v. Superior Court and Law Foundation of Silicon Valley v. Superior Court: “(1) May an organization obtain declaratory relief under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 7920.000 et seq.) based on a public entity’s failure to preserve records while the organization’s requests for those records were pending? (2) Is it a violation of the Public Records Act for a public entity to fail to preserve records it determined were exempt from disclosure before a court has had an opportunity to conduct a review?” The court granted review in both cases in February 2024. The pro tem justice has not yet been assigned. More about the cases here.
Sellers v. Superior Court: When the court granted review in December 2024, it limited the issues to: “1. Does the presence of 0.36 grams of loose marijuana on the floor of a vehicle constitute an open container violation under Health & Safety Code, section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4)? 2. Does the answer to this question affect whether there was probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search under the totality of the circumstances, such that remand would be required for reconsideration of the Court of Appeal’s alternative analysis, Sellers v. Superior Court (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 468, 478-479?” The Attorney General’s response to the amicus brief is not due until October 29. The pro tem justice has not yet been assigned. More about the case here.
Briefs for the cases are posted here. The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by February 2.
