The Supreme Court won’t be filing any opinions on Monday. Although Mondays and Thursdays are the court’s normal filing days, this Monday is New Year’s Day and, of course, all courts are closed. The Supreme Court will thus be starting 2024 with nine cases in the opinion pipeline, i.e., cases argued but not yet decided. Several have been on the docket for a while.

The pipeline cases are:

November calendar (opinions in 3 of the 4 cases are expected by February 5; briefs are here and oral argument videos are here)

  • People v. Helzer is an automatic appeal from a March 2005 judgment of death. Because of post-argument supplemental briefing, the opinion in this case isn’t due until February 15.
  • Estrada et al. v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. When the court granted review in June 2022, it limited the issue to: “Do trial courts have inherent authority to ensure that claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) will be manageable at trial, and to strike or narrow such claims if they cannot be managed?” More about the case here.
  • Romero v. Shih. When the court granted review in August 2022, it limited the issue to: “Did the trial court correctly find the existence of an implied easement under the facts?” More about the case here.
  • In re Vaquera. The issues, as summarized by court staff, are: (1) Did the Court of Appeal err by disagreeing with People v Jimenez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 373 and endorsing as mandatory the sentencing practice prohibited in that case; (2) Is the Court of Appeal’s decision incorrect under People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735; (3) Did the Court of Appeal err by failing to address petitioner’s claims as to the issues of waiver and estoppel? The court granted review in November 2019. More about the case here.

December calendar (opinions are expected by March 4; briefs are here; oral argument videos aren’t archived yet)

  • Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC. The issues, as summarized by court staff, are: (1) Does the statutory restitution remedy under the Song-Beverly Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) necessarily include an offset for a trade-in credit? (2) If the amount that a consumer has received in a trade-in transaction must be subtracted from the consumer’s recovery, should that amount be subtracted from the statutory restitution remedy or from the consumer’s total recovery? The court granted review in February 2021. More about the case here.
  • People v. Clark. When the court granted review in October 2022, it limited the issue to, “Can the People meet their burden of establishing a ‘pattern of criminal gang activity’ under Penal Code section 186.22 as amended by Assembly Bill No. 333 (Stats. 2021, ch. 699) by presenting evidence of individual gang members committing separate predicate offenses, or must the People provide evidence of two or more gang members working in concert with each other during each predicate offense?” More about the case here.
  • Haggerty v. Thornton. The issue, as summarized by court staff, is: Can a trust be modified according to the statutory procedures for revocation of a trust (Prob. Code, § 15401) if the trust instrument itself sets forth identical procedures for modification and revocation? The court granted review in December 2021. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero is recused; she authored the Court of Appeal opinion under review. Fifth District Court of Appeal Justice Charles Poochigian is sitting pro tem in her place. More about the case here.
  • People v. Hardin. The issues, as summarized by court staff, are: (1) Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults sentenced to life without the possibility of parole from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults sentenced to parole-eligible terms are entitled to such consideration? (2) Whether the first step of the two-part inquiry used to evaluate equal protection claims, which asks whether two or more groups are similarly situated for the purposes of the law challenged, should be eliminated in cases concerning disparate treatment of classes or groups of persons, such that the only inquiry is whether the challenged classification is adequately justified under the applicable standard of scrutiny? The court granted review in January 2023. More about the case here and here.
  • TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra. The issues, as summarized by court staff, are: (1) When a trial court denies a request for relief from a jury waiver under Code of Civil Procedure section 631, and the losing party does not seek writ review but instead appeals from an adverse judgment after a bench trial, must the appellant show “actual prejudice” when challenging the order on appeal? (2) Does a trial court abuse its discretion when it denies a request for relief from a jury trial waiver without a showing that granting the request will prejudice the opposing party or the trial court? The court granted review in April 2022. Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the defendant. More about the case here.