As we mentioned, the seven-case June calendar — announced yesterday — will have the Supreme Court file just 53 opinions in the 2024-2025 term.
It’s a bottom-heavy term, too. More than half of the term’s cases (30 of the 53) will be argued during the last four of the term’s 11 oral argument sessions. That seems to be a recent trend (see here), but a departure from a policy instituted in 2016-2017, when the court decided to have its calendars more evenly balanced throughout the term instead of backloading cases.
On Wednesday and Thursday, June 4 and 5, 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):
Olympic and Georgia Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles: (1) Is income from a hotel occupancy tax rebate an intangible asset exempt from property taxation? (2) Is a “key money” deposit that a hotel received from its management companies at the onset of their contractual relationship exempt from property taxation? (3) Were certain other hotel enterprise assets properly valued for taxation purposes? The court granted review in July 2023. More about the case here.
Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Commission: The case is about solar energy, although that’s not readily apparent from the issues as stated by court staff: (1) What standard of review applies to judicial review of a Public Utilities Commission decision interpreting provisions of the Public Utilities Code? (2) Did the Public Utilities Commission proceed in the manner required by law, specifically Public Utilities Code section 2827.1, subdivision (b)(1) and (3), when it adopted the successor tariff in Decision Revising Net Energy Metering Tariff and Subtariffs (2022) Cal.P.U.C. Dec. No. D.22-12-056? Today, the court advised the parties, “At oral argument, the parties are requested to focus on the following issue: Whether a court may disturb the Public Utilities Commission’s interpretation of the Public Utilities Code only if the interpretation ‘fails to bear a reasonable relation to statutory purposes and language.’ (Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 406, 410-411.)” The court granted review in April 2024. More about the case here.
Iloff v. LaPaille: The court limited the issues to — “1. Must an employer demonstrate that it affirmatively took steps to ascertain whether its pay practices comply with the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders to establish a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2, subdivision (b)? 2. May a wage claimant prosecute a paid sick leave claim under section 248.5, subdivision (b) of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Lab. Code, § 245 et seq.) in a de novo wage claim trial conducted pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2?” This is one of the oldest non-capital cases on the court’s docket. Review was granted in October 2022. More about the case here and here.
[June 2 update: last week, the court asked the parties to address at oral argument, “in addition to the issues addressed in their briefs in this court and in the Court of Appeal, whether an employee may raise a claim under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Lab. Code, § 245 et seq.) before the Labor Commissioner in an administrative proceeding (Lab. Code, § 98)?”]
People v. Superior Court (Guevara): Do the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.12) apply when a defendant is resentenced pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Pen. Code, § 1172.75)? The court asked for supplemental briefing to address “whether defendants qualify as ‘presently serving an indeterminate term’ under Penal Code section 1170.126 if they were serving such a term on the effective date of the statute, or only if they are currently serving such an indeterminate term.” The court granted review in March 2024. More about the case here and here.
[June 2 update: on Friday, the court ordered more supplemental briefing, this time about, “(1) Whether, as a matter of constitutional avoidance, the statutes may be harmonized by construing the public safety provision of Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (f) as applicable at resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 (see People v. Superior Court (Williams) (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1242, 1268-1274 (conc. & dis. opn. of Greenwood, P. J.)), and (2) Whether, if the court concludes that there is a constitutional conflict between Penal Code section 1172.75 and Penal Code section 1170.126, resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 may provide ‘good cause’ for a new or successive recall petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126.” This additional briefing will delay submission of the case and, thus, the due date for a decision.]
People v. Fletcher: When the court granted review in September 2023, it limited the issues to — “(1) Does Assembly Bill No. 333 amend the requirements for a true finding on a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)), or is that determination made on ‘the date of that prior conviction’? (See Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (d)(1) & 1170.12, subd. (b)(1).) (2) Does Assembly Bill No. 333 (Stats. 2021, ch. 699), which modified the criminal street gang statute (Pen. Code, § 186.22), unconstitutionally amend Proposition 21 and Proposition 36, if applied to strike convictions and serious felony convictions?” More about the case here.
People v. Aguirre: This is an automatic direct appeal from an August 2009 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel was appointed (on the court’s own motion, with the comment that “a criminal defendant has no right to represent himself or herself on appeal”) in November 2012. Initial briefing was completed in April 2019. Supplemental briefing was completed in September 2024.
People v. Barrera: This is an automatic direct appeal from a December 2001 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel was appointed in November 2006. Initial briefing was completed in April 2015. In December 2023, the court directed supplemental briefing concerning “the effect, if any, of the recent amendment to Penal Code section 745, subdivision (b) [part of the Racial Justice Act (here and here)] on the issues in this case? (Stats. 2023, ch. 464, § 1.)” The last supplemental brief was filed in October 2024. The Mexican government filed an amicus brief in June 2023. Barrera was convicted of killing two of his children. A Los Angeles Times article about his sentencing reported that a letter from Mexico’s consul general “said her country has ‘absolute opposition to capital punishment’ and is concerned about the effect of Barrera’s execution on his surviving children, some of whom are Mexican citizens.”
Briefs for the cases will soon be posted here. The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by August 28[, except in the Guevara case, which, because of additional supplemental briefing, won’t have a decision deadline until the beginning of October.]
