Supreme Court Oral Argument

This oral argument session will be held in-person at San Francisco.

View the oral argument Calendar | Briefs

The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing at its courtroom in the Ronald M. George State Office Complex, Earl Warren Building, 350 McAllister Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California, on May 6 and 7, 2026. The public may attend in person and also have access to argument via live-streaming on the judicial branch website: https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2026 — 9:00 A.M.

(1) Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association v. County of Los Angeles et al., S286264 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Does the board of a county public employee retirement system established under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL) (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) have authority under the California Constitution and relevant statutes to create employment classifications and set salaries for employees of the retirement system?  (2) Does Government Code section 31522.1 impose a ministerial duty on a county board of supervisors to include in the county’s employment classifications and salary ordinance the classifications and salaries adopted by the board of a county public employee retirement system for employees of that system?  (3) Do Proposition 162 (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17) and CERL override a county board of supervisors’ constitutional authority to establish civil service classifications, set salaries, and maintain a civil service system for county employees under article XI of the California Constitution? 

(2) Gilead Tenofovir Cases, S283862 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted in part and denied in part a petition for writ of mandate.  This case presents the following issue:  Does a drug manufacturer have a duty of reasonable care to users of a drug it is currently selling, which is not alleged to be defective, when making decisions about the commercialization of an allegedly safer, and at least equally effective, alternative drug? 

(3) Fox Paine & Company, LLC et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404 (Corrigan, J., not participating; justices pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed judgments in a civil action.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Where an insurance policyholder alleges loss sufficient to reach an excess policy, but that insurer’s obligation to pay is not yet triggered because underlying layers are not yet exhausted, may the policyholder nevertheless seek declaratory relief against the insurer?  (2) Can a policyholder ever state a claim against an excess insurer for “bad faith” conduct if the underlying policy layers are not yet exhausted? 

1:30 P.M.

(4) Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association v. Criminal Justice Attorney’s Association of Ventura County, S283978 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  For purposes of calculating retirement benefits for members of County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) retirement systems, does Government Code section 31461, subdivision (b)(2) exclude payments for accrued, but unused hours of annual leave that would exceed the maximum amount of leave that was earnable and payable in a calendar year? 

(5) Maniago (Glenn) et al. v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, Inc. et al., S290188 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a civil action.  The court limited review to the following issue:  Is a voluntary dismissal with prejudice an appealable order if it was entered after an adverse ruling by the trial court in order to expedite an appeal of the ruling? 

(6) People v. Espino (Jack), S286987 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a post-judgment motion in a criminal matter and remanded for resentencing.  The court limited review to the following issue:  Is a defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the judgment in the defendant’s criminal case includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed but for which punishment was stricken? 

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2026 — 9:00 A.M.

(7) People v. SanMiguel (Joel), S287786 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. The court limited review to the following issue:  Did the trial court properly overrule defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 objection to the People’s peremptory challenge of a prospective juror? 

(8) Conservatorship of the Person of E.A., S287241 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a conservatorship proceeding.  This case presents the following issue:  Must a conservatee demonstrate prejudice to establish that a 362-day delay in initiating a trial in a Lanterman-Petris-Short Act conservatorship proceeding violates due process and equal protection? 

(9) In re Spielbauer (Thomas John) on Discipline, S283172 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
Petitions for review after a State Bar Court recommendation of discipline of an attorney. This case presents the following issue:  If a victim of attorney misconduct suffers damages recoverable in tort and incurs attorney fees as a result of the misconduct, under what circumstances may the State Bar Court order restitution based on such damages and fees as a condition of the attorney’s probation?  (See Sorensen v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1036.)