BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//JudicialCouncil//NONSGML v1.0//EN BEGIN:VEVENT UID:event29031@trial.court DTSTAMP:20260409T141948Z DTSTART:20260304T213000Z DTEND:20260305T200000Z SUMMARY:Supreme Court Oral Argument DESCRIPTION:This oral argument session will be held in-person at San Francisco. The live webcasts will begin at 1:30 p.m. on March 4 [1], and 9:00 a.m. on March 5 [2]. View the Oral Argument Calendar [3] | Briefs [4] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ /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 March 4 and 5, 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/ [5]./ *WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2026 — 1:30 P.M.* (1) *O. (J.) v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (San Joaquin County Public Conservator, Real Party in Interest), S287285* /*(Brown, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore)*/ #24-257  O. (J.) v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (San Joaquin County Public Conservator, Real Party in Interest), S287285.  (C102071; nonpublished order; San Joaquin County Superior Court; STKMHLPSC20160000110.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate in a conservatorship proceeding, with the court issuing an order to show cause returnable before it.  This case presents the following issue:  Should this court’s decision in Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 be overruled or limited insofar as it allowed a public agency to bring “blanket challenges” against particular judges under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6?  The parties were further directed to serve and file supplemental briefs addressing the following question:  Assuming arguendo that “blanket challenges” to a particular judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 implicate separation of powers concerns, do those concerns apply to actions taken only by executive branch offices such as a county counsel or a district attorney’s office, or does the concern apply more broadly to non-executive branch entities such as a public defender’s office or a private law firm?  (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Tejeda) (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 892, 896; id. at p. 912, fn. 2 (conc. opn. of Aronson, J.); id. at p. 930 (dis. opn. of Thompson, J.).)  (2) *M. (J.) v. Illuminate Education, Inc., S286699* /*(Buchanan, J., assigned justice pro tempore) */ #24-211  J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc., S286699.  (B327683; 103 Cal.App.5th 1125; Ventura County Superior Court; 56-2022-00567324-CU-MC-VTA.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action and remanded for further proceedings.  This case presents the following issue:  Is a company that stores students’ confidential personal and medical information through its work providing software to school districts subject to liability to these students under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.) and the Customer Records Act (Civ. Code, § 1798.80 et seq.) following disclosure of such information through a data breach?  (3)* People v. Mitchell (Sunee Lynn), S277314 /(Bromberg, J., assigned justice pro tempore)/* #22-305  People v. Mitchell (Sunee Lynn), S277314.  (A163476; 83 Cal.App.5th 1051; Mendocino County Superior Court; SCUKCRCR2021373081.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.  This case presents the following issue:  Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements?  *THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2026 — 9:00 A.M.* (4) *People v. Bankston (Anthony George), [Automatic Appeal], S044739* /*(Reargument — Jenkins, J., retired Supreme Court justice, participating)*/ This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the following questions at reargument:  1. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), is the defendant ineligible for the death penalty under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) regardless of whether the violation was prejudicial?  If so, does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  2. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) categorically render the defendant ineligible for the death penalty in any subsequent retrial?  If so, would preclusion of the possibility of retrial on penalty violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  3. Is Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) severable?  (See Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 6.).  (5) *People v. Barrera (Marcos Esquivel), [Automatic Appeal], S103358* /*(Reargument — Jenkins, J., retired Supreme Court justice, participating)*/ This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the following questions at reargument:  1. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), is the defendant ineligible for the death penalty under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) regardless of whether the violation was prejudicial?  If so, does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  2. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) categorically render the defendant ineligible for the death penalty in any subsequent retrial?  If so, would preclusion of the possibility of retrial on penalty violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  3. Is Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) severable? (See Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 6.).  (6) *People v. Chhuon (Run Peter) and Pan (Samreth Sam), [Automatic Appeal], S105403* /*(Reargument — Jenkins, J., retired Supreme Court justice, participating)*/ This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the following questions at reargument:  1. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), is the defendant ineligible for the death penalty under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) regardless of whether the violation was prejudicial?  If so, does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  2. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) categorically render the defendant ineligible for the death penalty in any subsequent retrial?  If so, would preclusion of the possibility of retrial on penalty violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  3. Is Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) severable? (See Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 6.).  (7) *People v. Demolle (Alex), [Automatic Appeal], S159120   /(Reargument — Jenkins, J., retired Supreme Court justice, participating)/* This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the following questions at reargument:  1. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), is the defendant ineligible for the death penalty under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) regardless of whether the violation was prejudicial?  If so, does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  2. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) categorically render the defendant ineligible for the death penalty in any subsequent retrial?  If so, would preclusion of the possibility of retrial on penalty violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  3. Is Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) severable? (See Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 6.).  [1] https://jcc.granicus.com/player/event/5287 [2] https://jcc.granicus.com/player/event/5288 [3] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2026-02/March%204%20%26%205%2C%202026%20OA%20Calendar%20with%20issue%20statements%20-%20FINAL%20%281st%20Amended%29.pdf [4] https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case-information/briefs-argued-cases/march-4-and-5-2026-oral-argument-cases [5] 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 webcasts will begin at 1:30 p.m. on March 4, and 9:00 a.m. on March 5.

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 March 4 and 5, 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, MARCH 4, 2026 — 1:30 P.M.

(1) O. (J.) v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (San Joaquin County Public Conservator, Real Party in Interest), S287285
(Brown, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore)
#24-257  O. (J.) v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (San Joaquin County Public Conservator, Real Party in Interest), S287285.  (C102071; nonpublished order; San Joaquin County Superior Court; STKMHLPSC20160000110.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate in a conservatorship proceeding, with the court issuing an order to show cause returnable before it.  This case presents the following issue:  Should this court’s decision in Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 be overruled or limited insofar as it allowed a public agency to bring “blanket challenges” against particular judges under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6?  The parties were further directed to serve and file supplemental briefs addressing the following question:  Assuming arguendo that “blanket challenges” to a particular judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 implicate separation of powers concerns, do those concerns apply to actions taken only by executive branch offices such as a county counsel or a district attorney’s office, or does the concern apply more broadly to non-executive branch entities such as a public defender’s office or a private law firm?  (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Tejeda) (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 892, 896; id. at p. 912, fn. 2 (conc. opn. of Aronson, J.); id. at p. 930 (dis. opn. of Thompson, J.).) 

(2) M. (J.) v. Illuminate Education, Inc., S286699
(Buchanan, J., assigned justice pro tempore) 
#24-211  J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc., S286699.  (B327683; 103 Cal.App.5th 1125; Ventura County Superior Court; 56-2022-00567324-CU-MC-VTA.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action and remanded for further proceedings.  This case presents the following issue:  Is a company that stores students’ confidential personal and medical information through its work providing software to school districts subject to liability to these students under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.) and the Customer Records Act (Civ. Code, § 1798.80 et seq.) following disclosure of such information through a data breach? 

(3) People v. Mitchell (Sunee Lynn), S277314
(Bromberg, J., assigned justice pro tempore)
#22-305  People v. Mitchell (Sunee Lynn), S277314.  (A163476; 83 Cal.App.5th 1051; Mendocino County Superior Court; SCUKCRCR2021373081.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.  This case presents the following issue:  Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements? 

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2026 — 9:00 A.M.

(4) People v. Bankston (Anthony George), [Automatic Appeal], S044739
(Reargument — Jenkins, J., retired Supreme Court justice, participating)
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the following questions at reargument:  1. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), is the defendant ineligible for the death penalty under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) regardless of whether the violation was prejudicial?  If so, does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  2. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) categorically render the defendant ineligible for the death penalty in any subsequent retrial?  If so, would preclusion of the possibility of retrial on penalty violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  3. Is Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) severable?  (See Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 6.). 

(5) People v. Barrera (Marcos Esquivel), [Automatic Appeal], S103358
(Reargument — Jenkins, J., retired Supreme Court justice, participating)
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the following questions at reargument:  1. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), is the defendant ineligible for the death penalty under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) regardless of whether the violation was prejudicial?  If so, does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  2. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) categorically render the defendant ineligible for the death penalty in any subsequent retrial?  If so, would preclusion of the possibility of retrial on penalty violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  3. Is Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) severable? (See Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 6.). 

(6) People v. Chhuon (Run Peter) and Pan (Samreth Sam), [Automatic Appeal], S105403
(Reargument — Jenkins, J., retired Supreme Court justice, participating)
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the following questions at reargument:  1. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), is the defendant ineligible for the death penalty under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) regardless of whether the violation was prejudicial?  If so, does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  2. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) categorically render the defendant ineligible for the death penalty in any subsequent retrial?  If so, would preclusion of the possibility of retrial on penalty violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  3. Is Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) severable? (See Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 6.). 

(7) People v. Demolle (Alex), [Automatic Appeal], S159120  
(Reargument — Jenkins, J., retired Supreme Court justice, participating)
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.  The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the following questions at reargument:  1. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), is the defendant ineligible for the death penalty under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) regardless of whether the violation was prejudicial?  If so, does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  2. Upon a finding of a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), does Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) categorically render the defendant ineligible for the death penalty in any subsequent retrial?  If so, would preclusion of the possibility of retrial on penalty violate either article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, or the “Briggs Initiative” (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978))?  3. Is Penal Code section 745, subdivision (l) severable? (See Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 6.). 

LOCATION: END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR