BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//JudicialCouncil//NONSGML v1.0//EN BEGIN:VEVENT UID:event28351@trial.court DTSTAMP:20260417T074711Z DTSTART:20250507T160000Z DTEND:20250508T000000Z SUMMARY:Supreme Court Oral Argument DESCRIPTION:These oral argument sessions will be held in-person at San Francisco. The live webcasts will begin at 9:00 a.m. on May 6 and May 7. View the live cast [1] View the Oral Argument Calendar [2] | Briefs [3] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2025 — 9:00 A.M.* (1)/ *In re Ja.O. et al., S280572*/ #23-153  In re Ja.O. et al., S280572.  (E079651; 91 Cal.App.5th 672; San Bernardino County  Superior Court; J291035.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed orders in a juvenile dependency proceeding.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Does the duty of a child welfare agency to inquire of extended family members and others about a child’s potential Indian ancestry apply to children who are taken into custody under a protective custody warrant?  (2) Does Assembly Bill No. 81 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.), enacted as Stats. 2024, ch. 656 have any significance in this case? (2) */EpicentRx, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (EpiRx, L.P., Real Party in Interest), S282521/* #23-247  EpicentRx, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (EpiRx, L.P., Real Party in Interest), S282521.  (D081670; 95 Cal.App.5th 890, mod. 95 Cal.App.5th 1320a; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2022-00015228-CUBT-CTL.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate in a civil action. This case presents the following issue:  Is a forum selection clause enforceable when a party’s right under California state law to a jury trial for their civil claims would not apply in the exclusive forum identified by the clause? (3) /*Taking Offense v. State of California, S270535*/ #21-521  Taking Offense v. State of California, S270535.  (C088485; 66 Cal.App.5th 696; Sacramento County Superior Court; 34201780002749CUWMGDS.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Did the Court of Appeal err in declaring the provision of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights (Health & Saf. Code, § 1439.51) that criminalizes the willful and repeated failure to use a resident’s chosen name and pronouns unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment?  (2) Whether California recognizes a common law taxpayer standing doctrine to bring actions against state officials; and (3) If the common law provides taxpayer plaintiffs with standing to sue state officials, whether the plaintiff in this case has established any such standing.  *1:30 P.M.* (4) /*People v. Choyce (William Jennings), [Automatic Appeal], S169090*/ This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  *WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2025 — 9:00 A.M.* (5) /*People v. Faial (Jerry Anthony), S273840*/ #22-133  People v. Faial (Jerry Anthony), S273840.  (A159026; 75 Cal.App.5th 738; San Mateo County Superior Court; SC083808.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing and otherwise affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.  This case presents the following issue:  Does Assembly Bill No. 1950 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328) apply retroactively to a defendant, serving a suspended-execution sentence, whose probation was revoked before the law went into effect?  (6) /*People v. Dain (Yacob), S283924*/ #24-86  People v. Dain (Yacob), S283924.  (A168286; 99 Cal.App.5th 399; Sonoma County Superior Court; SCR7090531.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a motion in a criminal matter and remanded for further proceedings.  The court limited review to the following issue:  Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding the case with directions to reinstate the strike finding and to resentence defendant as a person who has suffered a prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes Law?  (See People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 164, fn. 7; see also People v. McGlothin (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 468, 478; People v. Humphrey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 809, 814; but see People v. Mayfield (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1096, 1109; People v. Strong (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 328, 347.) (7) /*People v. Dunn (Aaron Norman), [Automatic Appeal], S184521*/ This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death. *1:30 P.M.* (8) /*People v. Bankston (Anthony George), [Automatic Appeal], S044739*/ This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  [1] https://jcc.granicus.com/player/event/4337 [2] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2025-04/May%206%20%26%207%202025%20OA%20Calendar%20with%20issue%20statements%20-%20FINAL.pdf [3] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case-information/briefs-argued-cases/may-6-and-7-2025-oral-argument-cases X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:

These oral argument sessions will be held in-person at San Francisco.

The live webcasts will begin at 9:00 a.m. on May 6 and May 7.

View the live cast

View the Oral Argument Calendar | Briefs

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2025 — 9:00 A.M.

(1) In re Ja.O. et al., S280572
#23-153  In re Ja.O. et al., S280572.  (E079651; 91 Cal.App.5th 672; San Bernardino County  Superior Court; J291035.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed orders in a juvenile dependency proceeding.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Does the duty of a child welfare agency to inquire of extended family members and others about a child’s potential Indian ancestry apply to children who are taken into custody under a protective custody warrant?  (2) Does Assembly Bill No. 81 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.), enacted as Stats. 2024, ch. 656 have any significance in this case?

(2) EpicentRx, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (EpiRx, L.P., Real Party in Interest), S282521
#23-247  EpicentRx, Inc. et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (EpiRx, L.P., Real Party in Interest), S282521.  (D081670; 95 Cal.App.5th 890, mod. 95 Cal.App.5th 1320a; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2022-00015228-CUBT-CTL.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate in a civil action. This case presents the following issue:  Is a forum selection clause enforceable when a party’s right under California state law to a jury trial for their civil claims would not apply in the exclusive forum identified by the clause?

(3) Taking Offense v. State of California, S270535
#21-521  Taking Offense v. State of California, S270535.  (C088485; 66 Cal.App.5th 696; Sacramento County Superior Court; 34201780002749CUWMGDS.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Did the Court of Appeal err in declaring the provision of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights (Health & Saf. Code, § 1439.51) that criminalizes the willful and repeated failure to use a resident’s chosen name and pronouns unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment?  (2) Whether California recognizes a common law taxpayer standing doctrine to bring actions against state officials; and (3) If the common law provides taxpayer plaintiffs with standing to sue state officials, whether the plaintiff in this case has established any such standing. 

1:30 P.M.

(4) People v. Choyce (William Jennings), [Automatic Appeal], S169090
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death. 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2025 — 9:00 A.M.

(5) People v. Faial (Jerry Anthony), S273840
#22-133  People v. Faial (Jerry Anthony), S273840.  (A159026; 75 Cal.App.5th 738; San Mateo County Superior Court; SC083808.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing and otherwise affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.  This case presents the following issue:  Does Assembly Bill No. 1950 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328) apply retroactively to a defendant, serving a suspended-execution sentence, whose probation was revoked before the law went into effect? 

(6) People v. Dain (Yacob), S283924
#24-86  People v. Dain (Yacob), S283924.  (A168286; 99 Cal.App.5th 399; Sonoma County Superior Court; SCR7090531.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a motion in a criminal matter and remanded for further proceedings.  The court limited review to the following issue:  Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding the case with directions to reinstate the strike finding and to resentence defendant as a person who has suffered a prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes Law?  (See People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 164, fn. 7; see also People v. McGlothin (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 468, 478; People v. Humphrey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 809, 814; but see People v. Mayfield (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1096, 1109; People v. Strong (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 328, 347.)

(7) People v. Dunn (Aaron Norman), [Automatic Appeal], S184521
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

1:30 P.M.

(8) People v. Bankston (Anthony George), [Automatic Appeal], S044739
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death. 

LOCATION: END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR