BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//JudicialCouncil//NONSGML v1.0//EN BEGIN:VEVENT UID:event28356@trial.court DTSTAMP:20260604T191625Z DTSTART:20251104T180000Z DTEND:20251104T233000Z SUMMARY:Supreme Court Oral Argument DESCRIPTION:This oral argument session will be held in-person at San Francisco. The live webcast will begin here [1] at 10 a.m. on November 4. View the Calendar [2] | Briefs [3] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ /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 November 4, 2025.  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/ [4]./ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2025 — 10:00 A.M.* /*IN MEMORIAM – HON. JOSEPH R. GRODIN*/ Associate Justice, California Supreme Court (1982 – 1987) *10:30 A.M.* (1) /*Fuentes (Evangelina Yanez) v. Empire Nissan, Inc., et al., S280256*/ /(Stewart, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore)/ (Stewart, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore) #23-160  Fuentes (Evangelina Yanez) v. Empire Nissan, Inc., et al., S280256.  (B314490; 90 Cal.App.5th 919; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20STCV35350.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Is the form arbitration agreement that the employer here required prospective employees to sign as a condition of employment unenforceable against an employee due to unconscionability? *1:30 P.M.* (2) */City of Gilroy v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Real Party in Interest), S282937, and Law Foundation of Silicon Valley v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (City of Gilroy, Real Party in Interest), S282950 (consolidated cases)/* /(Stratton, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore)/ #24-32  City of Gilroy v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Real Party in Interest), S282937.  (H049552; 96 Cal.App.5th 818, mod. 97 Cal.App.5th 462a; Santa Clara County Superior Court; 20CV362347.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate.  #24-33  Law Foundation of Silicon Valley v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (City of Gilroy, Real Party in Interest), S282950.  (H049554; 96 Cal.App.5th 818, mod. 97 Cal.App.5th 462a; Santa Clara County Superior Court; 20CV362347.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. /City of Gilroy and Law Foundation of Silicon Valley/ were consolidated for all purposes.  They both present the following issues:  (1) May an organization obtain declaratory relief under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 7920.000 et seq.) based on a public entity’s failure to preserve records while the organization’s requests for those records were pending?  (2) Is it a violation of the Public Records Act for a public entity to fail to preserve records it determined were exempt from disclosure before a court has had an opportunity to conduct a review?  (3) /*Sellers (Davonyae) v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (People, Real Party in Interest), S287164* (Streeter, J., assigned justice pro tempore)/ #24-259  Sellers (Davonyae) v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (People, Real Party in Interest), S287164.  (C100036; 104 Cal.App.5th 468; Sacramento County Superior Court; 21FE018661.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Does the presence of 0.36 grams of loose marijuana on the floor of a vehicle constitute an open container violation under Health & Safety Code, section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4)?  (2) Does the answer to this question affect whether there was probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search under the totality of the circumstances, such that remand would be required for reconsideration of the Court of Appeal’s alternative analysis, Sellers v. Superior Court (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 468, 478–479?  [1] https://jcc.granicus.com/player/event/4889 [2] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2025-10/Nov.%204%2C%202025%20OA%20Calendar%20with%20issue%20statements%20-%20FINAL%20%281st%20Amended%29.pdf [3] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case-information/briefs-argued-cases/november-4-2025-oral-argument-cases [4] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/ X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:

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

The live webcast will begin here at 10 a.m. on November 4.

View the 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 November 4, 2025.  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/.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2025 — 10:00 A.M.

IN MEMORIAM – HON. JOSEPH R. GRODIN
Associate Justice, California Supreme Court (1982 – 1987)

10:30 A.M.

(1) Fuentes (Evangelina Yanez) v. Empire Nissan, Inc., et al., S280256
(Stewart, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore)
(Stewart, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore) #23-160  Fuentes (Evangelina Yanez) v. Empire Nissan, Inc., et al., S280256.  (B314490; 90 Cal.App.5th 919; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20STCV35350.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Is the form arbitration agreement that the employer here required prospective employees to sign as a condition of employment unenforceable against an employee due to unconscionability?

1:30 P.M.

(2) City of Gilroy v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Real Party in Interest), S282937, and Law Foundation of Silicon Valley v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (City of Gilroy, Real Party in Interest), S282950 (consolidated cases)
(Stratton, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore)
#24-32  City of Gilroy v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Real Party in Interest), S282937.  (H049552; 96 Cal.App.5th 818, mod. 97 Cal.App.5th 462a; Santa Clara County Superior Court; 20CV362347.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. 
#24-33  Law Foundation of Silicon Valley v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (City of Gilroy, Real Party in Interest), S282950.  (H049554; 96 Cal.App.5th 818, mod. 97 Cal.App.5th 462a; Santa Clara County Superior Court; 20CV362347.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate.
City of Gilroy and Law Foundation of Silicon Valley were consolidated for all purposes.  They both present the following issues:  (1) May an organization obtain declaratory relief under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 7920.000 et seq.) based on a public entity’s failure to preserve records while the organization’s requests for those records were pending?  (2) Is it a violation of the Public Records Act for a public entity to fail to preserve records it determined were exempt from disclosure before a court has had an opportunity to conduct a review? 

(3) Sellers (Davonyae) v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (People, Real Party in Interest), S287164
(Streeter, J., assigned justice pro tempore)
#24-259  Sellers (Davonyae) v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (People, Real Party in Interest), S287164.  (C100036; 104 Cal.App.5th 468; Sacramento County Superior Court; 21FE018661.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Does the presence of 0.36 grams of loose marijuana on the floor of a vehicle constitute an open container violation under Health & Safety Code, section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4)?  (2) Does the answer to this question affect whether there was probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search under the totality of the circumstances, such that remand would be required for reconsideration of the Court of Appeal’s alternative analysis, Sellers v. Superior Court (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 468, 478–479? 

LOCATION: END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR