The Supreme Court today announced its June calendar. These will be the last oral arguments of the court’s 2015-2016 term. We’re not sure whether “term” is an official, well, term for California’s Supreme Court as it is for the U.S. Supreme Court, but it’s appropriate, because the state high court does not hear oral arguments in July or August.
On June 1 and 2, in Los Angeles, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):
People v. Armstrong: This is an automatic appeal from a January 2005 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
People v. Rinehart: Does the Mining Act of 1872 (30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq.) preempt California Fish and Game Code sections 5653 and 5653.1 with respect to the use of vacuum and suction dredging equipment?
People v. Covarrubias: This is an automatic appeal from an October 1998 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court: (1) Did the plaintiffs in this action who are not residents of California establish specific jurisdiction over their claims against the nonresident pharmaceutical drug manufacturer? (2) Does general jurisdiction exist in light of Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. __ [134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624]?
[Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy is co-counsel for Bristol-Myers.]
Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates: Are the requirements in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued to real parties in interest by the regional water quality control board state mandates subject to reimbursement under article XIII B, section 6, subdivision (b), of the state Constitution?
Horiike v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage: When the buyer and the seller in a residential real estate transaction are each independently represented by a different salesperson from the same brokerage firm, does Civil Code section 2079.13, subdivision (b), make each salesperson the fiduciary to both the buyer and the seller with the duty to provide undivided loyalty, confidentiality and counseling to both?
[Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy is lead appellate counsel for Horiike.]
Kesner v. Superior Court: If an employer’s business involves either the use or the manufacture of asbestos-containing products, does the employer owe a duty of care to members of an employee’s household who could be affected by asbestos brought home on the employee’s clothing?
[Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy is appellate counsel for real party in interest Pneumo Abex LLC.]
Share