California Supreme Court Calendar
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012 – 9 A.M.
(1) Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC et al., S186149
Decision below reported at 187 Cal.App.4th 24. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is a homeowners association bound by an arbitration provision contained in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions for a common interest development that were executed and recorded prior to the time the association came into existence? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err by applying the state law doctrine of unconscionability only to the arbitration provision, and not to other provisions in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, in light of federal law prohibiting the application of state law to treat arbitration provisions differently from other provisions of the same agreement? (See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265.)
(2) Parks (Allan) v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., S183703 (Chin, J., not participating; Gomes, J., assigned justice pro tempore)
Decision below reported at 184 Cal.App.4th 652. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is Civil Code section 1748.9, which requires credit card issuers to make certain disclosures on checks issued to cardholders for cash advances from the cardholders’ credit card accounts, preempted by the National Bank Act (12 U.S.C. § 21 et seq.)? (2) Is 12 Code of Federal Regulations part 7.4008, which was promulgated under the National Bank Act by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and which provides that state laws that impair a nationally chartered bank’s non-real-estate banking powers are not applicable to nationally chartered banks, a valid regulation?
(3) Leung (Aidan Ming-Ho) v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, S192768
Decision below reported at 193 Cal.App.4th 971. This case presents the following issue: Should the common law rule that a release for consideration of one joint tortfeasor operates as a release of the joint and several liability of all joint tortfeasors be abandoned in light of statutory and case law modifications of the joint and several liability rule?
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012 – 1:30 P.M.
(4) People v. Valdez (Richard), S062180 [Automatic Appeal]
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
(5) People v. Duenas (Enrique Parra), S077033 [Automatic Appeal]
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
(6) People v. Gonzales (Ivan Joe), S067353 [Automatic Appeal]
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2012 – 9 A.M.
(7) State of California v. Continental Insurance Co. et al.; Employers Insurance of Wausau, S170560
Decision below reported at 170 Cal.App.4th 160. This case presents the following issues: (1) When continuous property damage occurs during the periods of several successive liability policies, is each insurer liable for all damage both during and outside its period up to the amount of the insurer’s policy limits? (2) If so, is the “stacking” of limits—i.e., obtaining the limits of successive policies—permitted?
(8) In re W.B.; The People v. W.B., S181638
Decision below reported at 182 Cal.App.4th 126. This case presents the following issue: Is Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.3, which requires tribal notification under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) of a juvenile delinquency proceeding (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) when a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, preempted because it expands jurisdiction to proceedings expressly excluded from the Act?
(9) People v. Runyan (Paul Dean), S187804
Decision below reported at 188 Cal.App.4th 1010. This case presents the following issue: Did the trial court err in awarding restitution to a manslaughter victim’s estate as a “direct victim” of the crime within the meaning of Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (k)(2)?
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2012 – 1:30 P.M.
(10) People v. Turnage (Barry Allen), S182598 (Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., not participating; Levy, J., assigned justice pro tempore)
Decision below reported at 183 Cal.App.4th 458. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Does Penal Code section 148.1, subdivision (d), violate equal protection principles because a violation is punishable as an alternative felony-misdemeanor without a finding that a person was placed in sustained fear? (See Pen. Code, § 11418.1.) (2) If so, what is the proper remedy?
(11) In re Bacigalupo (Miguel Angel) on Habeas Corpus, S079656
Original proceeding. In this case, which is related to the automatic appeal in People v. Bacigalupo, 6 Cal.4th 457, the court issued an order to show cause limited to claims that the prosecution withheld potentially mitigating evidence that may have affected the penalty determination.
(12) People v. McKinzie (Kenneth), S081918 [Automatic Appeal]
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012 – 9 A.M.
(13) Coito (Debra) v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County (State of California, Real Party in Interest), S181712
Decision below reported at 182 Cal.App.4th 758. This case presents the following issue: Is the statement of a witness that is taken in writing or otherwise recorded verbatim by an attorney or the attorney’s representative entitled to the protection of the California work product privilege?
(14) People v. Aranda, Jr. (Anthony), S188204
Decision below reported at 188 Cal.App.4th 1490. The court limited review to the following issues: Is the trial court’s failure to give a standard reasonable doubt instruction (CALJIC No. 2.90) reversible per se or is such failure subject to harmless error review? If so, should harmless error be assessed under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, or Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18?
(15) People v. Sauceda-Contreras (Jose), S191747
Decision below nonpublished. This case presents the following issues: (1) After defendant had been given his Miranda rights, did his statement—“If you can bring me a lawyer . . . that way I can tell you everything that I know and everything that I need to tell you and someone to represent me”—constitute a clear invocation of his right to counsel that required questioning to cease and did not permit the interrogating officers to attempt to clarify what defendant meant? (2) Was any error in the admission of defendant’s subsequent statements harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012 – 1:30 P.M.
(16) People v. Caballero (Rodrigo) and companion case, S190647
Decision below reported at 191 Cal.App.4th 1248. This case presents the following issue: Does a sentence of 110 years to life for a juvenile convicted of committing non-homicide offenses constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment on the ground it is the functional equivalent of a life sentence without the possibility of parole? (See Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825.)
(17) People v. Gonzalez (Perla Isabel), S189856
Decision below reported at 190 Cal.App.4th 968. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Was the evidence sufficient to convict defendant of first degree provocative act murder? (2) Was the instructional error in failing to tell jurors that defendant had to personally premeditate an attempted murder in order to be guilty of first degree provocative act murder harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
(18) People v. Houston (Eric Christopher), S035190 [Automatic Appeal]
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.