The Supreme Court announced today that it would hear three civil cases on its December calendar.  That’s a small enough number to have all arguments heard not only in one day, but in one morning.  The Supreme Court hasn’t had a two-day oral argument session since the seven-case June calendar.  The September, October, and November calendars had three, five, and five cases, respectively.

The lighter than usual calendars might be due in part to Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar’s retirement at the end of last month.  He did not hear the October or November arguments.  Vacancies hamper the court because, among other things, the court typically delays scheduling arguments in cases where the six permanent justices are tentatively evenly divided.

Like all calendars since April 2020, and for the foreseeable future, the December calendar will be remote and based in San Francisco.    (See here, here, here, here, and here.)  The arguments will be live streamed, as all arguments have been since May 2016.

Because of the vacancy caused by Justice Cuéllar’s retirement, a Court of Appeal justice will be sitting on each of the December cases.  The pro tems have yet to be chosen and will be assigned on a mostly alphabetical basis.

On December 7, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):

Berroteran v. Superior Court:  Does a party against whom former deposition testimony in a different case is sought to be admitted at trial under Evidence Code section 1291, subdivision (a)(2), have a similar interest and motive at both hearings to cross-examine a friendly witness?  The court granted review in February 2020.  [Disclosure:  Horvitz & Levy filed the petition for review and has briefed the case in the Supreme Court.]

Lopez v. Ledesma:  Was a physician’s assistant who treated a patient without direct physician supervision entitled to invoke the limitations of Civil Code section 3333.2 on noneconomic damages?  The court granted review in July 2020.

Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank:  Does a mortgage servicer owe a borrower a duty of care to refrain from making material misrepresentations about the status of a foreclosure sale following the borrower’s submission of, and the servicer’s agreement to review, an application to modify a mortgage loan?  The court granted review in November 2019.

[November 24 update:  Pro tems for December calendar will make a majority-female court.]