Supreme Court
Docket (Register of Actions)
BOERMEESTER v. CARRY
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S263180
| Date | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 07/06/2020 | Petition for review filed |
Defendant and Respondent: Ainsley Carry Defendant and Respondent: The University of Southern California |
| 07/07/2020 | Record requested | Court of Appeal record imported and available electronically. |
| 07/06/2020 | Request for depublication (petition for review pending) |
Defendant and Respondent: Ainsley Carry Defendant and Respondent: The University of Southern California |
| 08/20/2020 | Time extended to grant or deny review | The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including October 2, 2020, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied. |
| 09/16/2020 | Petition for review granted |
The petition for review is granted. The request for an order directing depublication of the opinion in the above-entitled appeal is granted. The Reporter of Decisions is directed not to publish in the Official Appellate Reports the opinion in the above-entitled appeal filed May 28, 2020, which appears at 49 Cal.App.5th 682. (Cal. Const., art. VI, section 14; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1125(c)(1).) Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger and Groban, JJ. |
| 09/16/2020 | Letter sent requesting certification of interested parties/entities | |
| 09/24/2020 | Certification of interested entities or persons filed |
Ainsley Carry, Defendant and Respondent Scott P. Dixler, Retained counsel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The University of Southern California, Defendant and Respondent Scott P. Dixler, Retained counsel |
| 09/30/2020 | Issues ordered limited |
The issues to be briefed and argued in the above-entitled case are as follows: 1. Under what circumstances, if any, does the common law right to fair procedure require a private university to afford a student who is the subject of a disciplinary proceeding with the opportunity to utilize certain procedural processes, such as cross-examination of witnesses at a live hearing? 2. Did the student who was the subject of the disciplinary proceeding in this matter waive or forfeit any right he may have had to cross-examine witnesses at a live hearing? 3. Assuming it was error for the university to fail to provide the accused student with the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at a live hearing in this matter, was the error harmless? |
| 09/30/2020 | Application for extension of time filed | By Scott Dixler, counsel for respondent is requesting a 60-day extension to and including December 15, 2020 to file the opening brief on the merits. |
| 10/14/2020 | Extension of time granted | On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is hereby extended to and including December 15, 2020. |
| 10/14/2020 | Additional issues ordered | On September 30, 2020, the court directed the parties to brief and argue the following issues in the above-entitled case: 1. Under what circumstances, if any, does the common law right to fair procedure require a private university to afford a student who is the subject of a disciplinary proceeding with the opportunity to utilize certain procedural processes, such as cross-examination of witnesses at a live hearing? 2. Did the student who was the subject of the disciplinary proceeding in this matter waive or forfeit any right he may have had to cross-examine witnesses at a live hearing? 3. Assuming it was error for the university to fail to provide the accused student with the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at a live hearing in this matter, was the error harmless? In addition to these issues, the court directs the parties to brief and argue the following issue in the above-entitled case: 4. What effect, if any, does Senate Bill No. 493 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) have on the resolution of the issues presented by this case? |
| 11/13/2020 | Certification of interested entities or persons filed |
Mathhew Boermeester, Plaintiff and Appellant Mark M. Hathaway, Retained counsel |
| 12/14/2020 | Opening brief on the merits filed |
Defendant and Respondent: Ainsley Carry Defendant and Respondent: The University of Southern California Opening brief on the merits filed. Due on 12/15/2020 By 60 Day(s) |
| 03/12/2021 | Answer brief on the merits filed |
Plaintiff and Appellant: Matthew Boermeester Answer brief on the merits filed. Due on 03/12/2021 By 58 Day(s) |
| 01/05/2021 | Application for extension of time filed | By Mark Hathaway, counsel for appellant, requesting a 60-day extension to and including March 12, 2021 to file the answer brief on the merits. |
| 01/11/2021 | Extension of time granted | On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including March 12, 2021. |
| 03/18/2021 | Application for extension of time filed | By Scott Dixler, counsel for respondents is requesting a 60-day extension to and including June 1, 2021 to file the reply brief. |
| 03/19/2021 | Extension of time granted | On application of respondents and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits is extended to and including June 1, 2021. |
| 03/24/2021 | Filed: |
Notice of Errata on Answer Brief on the Merits Matthew Boermeester, Plaintiff and Appellant Mark M. Hathaway, Retained counsel |
| 04/13/2021 | Motion filed |
Motion to Strike Answer Brief on the Merits Ainsley Carry, Defendant and Respondent Scott P. Dixler, Retained counsel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The University of Southern California, Defendant and Respondent Scott P. Dixler, Retained counsel |
| 04/28/2021 | Opposition filed |
Plaintiff and Appellant: Matthew Boermeester |
| 06/01/2021 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) |
Defendant and Respondent: Ainsley Carry Defendant and Respondent: The University of Southern California Reply brief filed (case fully briefed). Due on 06/01/2021 By 61 Day(s) |
| 06/16/2021 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed | By Cynthia P. Garrett, counsel for amicus curiae, Families Advocating for Campus Equality requesting permission to file an amicus curie brief in support of Matthew Boermeester.(Application contained within Amicus Brief) |
| 06/17/2021 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted | The application of Families Advocating for Campus Equality for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellant is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).) |
| 06/17/2021 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
Amicus curiae: Families Advocating for Campus Equality |
| 06/30/2021 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed |
By Lowell C. Brown,, counsel for amicus curiae, California Hospital Association requesting permission to file an amicus curie brief in support of no party. (Application contained within Amicus Brief) |
| 07/01/2021 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed |
By Apalla U. Chopra, counsel for California Institute of Technology, Chapman University, Claremont McKenna College, Occidental College, and Pepperdine University requesting permission to file an amici brief in support of respondents. (Application contained within Amicus brief) |
| 07/01/2021 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case) | *Anton Metlitsky requesting to appear as pro hac vice for California Institute of Technology, Chapman University, Claremont McKenna College, Occidental College, and Pepperdine University* |
| 07/01/2021 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
Amicus curiae: Attorney General |
| 07/01/2021 | Application to file amicus curiae brief filed | By Theane Evangelis, counsel for California Women's Law Center, Equal Rights Advocates, Kylee O., Maryam I., Claudia R., and 23 additional organizations requesting permission to file an amicus brief in support of respondents. |
| 07/02/2021 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted | The application of California Women's Law Center, Equal Rights Advocates, Kylee O., Maryam I., Claudia R., Alliance for HOPE International, Atlanta Women for Equality, Center for Community Solutions, Child Abuse Forensic Institute, Community Legal Aid SoCal, Domestic Abuse Center, Family Violence Appellate Project, Family Violence Law Center, Feminist Majority Foundation, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Legal Aid At Work, Legal Voice, Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice, National Association of Women Lawyers, National Women's Law Center, Public Counsel, Rural Human Services/Harrington House, San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc., Southwest Women's Law Center, Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center, WEAVE, Inc., and Women's Law Project for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).) |
| 07/02/2021 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
Amicus curiae: California Women's Law Center Amicus curiae: Equal Rights Advocates Amicus curiae: Kylee O. Amicus curiae: Maryam I. Amicus curiae: Claudia R. Amicus curiae: Alliance for HOPE International Amicus curiae: Atlanta Women for Equality Amicus curiae: Center for Community Solutions Amicus curiae: Child Abuse Forensic Institute Amicus curiae: Community Legal Aid SoCal Amicus curiae: Domestic Abuse Center Amicus curiae: Family Violence Appellate Project Amicus curiae: Family Violence Law Center Amicus curiae: Feminist Majority Foundation Amicus curiae: Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Amicus curiae: Legal Aid At Work Amicus curiae: Legal Voice Amicus curiae: Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice Amicus curiae: National Association of Women Lawyers Amicus curiae: National Women's Law Center Amicus curiae: Public Counsel Amicus curiae: Rural Human Services/Harrington House Amicus curiae: Southwest Women's Law Center Amicus curiae: Texas Association Against Sexual Assault Amicus curiae: Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Amicus curiae: WEAVE, Inc. Amicus curiae: Women's Law Project Amicus curiae: San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, Inc. |
| 07/06/2021 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted | The application of California Hospital Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of no party is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).) |
| 07/06/2021 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
Amicus curiae: California Hospital Association |
| 07/06/2021 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted | The application of California Institute of Technology, Chapman University, Claremont McKenna College, Occidental College, and Pepperdine University for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondents is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).) |
| 07/06/2021 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
Amicus curiae: California Institute of Technology Amicus curiae: Chapman University Amicus curiae: Claremont McKenna College Amicus curiae: Occidental College Amicus curiae: Pepperdine University |
| 07/06/2021 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted | The application of Anton Metlitsky for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of California Institute of Technology, Chapman University, Claremont McKenna College, Occidental College, and Pepperdine University is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.) |
| 08/06/2021 | Received: |
Untimely Response to Amicus Curiae Brief. Counsel is to submit an Application Relief from Default. Matthew Boermeester, Plaintiff and Appellant Jenna E Parker, Retained counsel |
| 08/09/2021 | Application for relief from default filed |
Matthew Boermeester, Plaintiff and Appellant Jenna E Parker, Retained counsel |
| 08/11/2021 | Order filed | The application for relief from default filed on August 9, 2021 by appellant, Matthew Boermeester, and for permission to file an untimely consolidated response to amicus curiae briefs is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).) |
| 08/11/2021 | Response to amicus curiae brief filed |
Plaintiff and Appellant: Matthew Boermeester |
| 01/07/2022 | Notice of substitution of counsel | Substitution of Counsel by Amici California Women's Law Center and Equal Rights Advocates. |
| 01/11/2022 | Change of contact information filed for: | Julie Arias Young, attorney for defendants and respondents, to inform the court that the law firm formerly known as Young & Zinn LLP is now Young, Zinn, Pazzani & Sandhu LLP. |
| 06/09/2022 | Notice of substitution of counsel | Substitution of Counsel by Amici California Women's Law Center. |
| 08/04/2022 | Notice of substitution of counsel | Substitution of Counsel by Amici California Women's Law Center. |
| 08/15/2022 | Notice of Unavailability of Counsel Filed | Jeremy B. Rosen, counsel for respondent requests oral argument not be set from November 28, 2022 - January 20, 2023. |
| 01/20/2023 | Change of contact information filed for: |
counsel for respondents Old address: Young & Zinn LLP 1150 S. Olive Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90015 New address: PAZZANI & SANDHU LLP 700 N. Central Ave., Suite 460 Glendale, California 91203 |
| 02/16/2023 | Oral argument letter sent |
Dear Counsel: Please be advised that the court could set this case for argument within the next few months. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Administrative Order No. 2022-10-05, in November 2022 the court resumed in-person oral argument in its San Francisco courtroom. Counsel also have the option to appear remotely via video. Please consult the administrative order for additional relevant information and requirements. Schedules showing upcoming oral argument dates can be found at https://supreme.courts.ca.gov by clicking on "Oral Arguments Calendar," and then accessing the "Oral Argument Calendar Dates" documents. Any counsel who believes good cause exists to avoid scheduling oral argument for a particular date (including counsel who, before receiving this letter, have previously asked to avoid certain dates) should inform the court within 7 calendar days from the date of this letter with a detailed explanation for such cause. Thereafter, counsel must immediately update the court on an ongoing basis as additional conflicts constituting good cause may arise. Examples of conflicts previously found to constitute good cause to avoid scheduling argument on any particular date include significant health-related issues; prepaid and nonrefundable travel arrangements booked in advance of the court's notification regarding oral argument; and significant family events such as weddings. Examples of conflicts previously found not to constitute good cause include scheduled trial and hearing dates in lower courts; conflicting professional seminars, meetings, or conventions; and planned significant family events that do not conflict with the actual dates on which argument might be held. Once the court files an order setting this case for oral argument, that date will not be changed absent exceptional cause, such as a medical emergency. Immediately upon filing of the calendar setting this case for argument, the court will send counsel an email communication with (1) a copy of that document; (2) an appearance form, upon which counsel must provide the names of the attorney or attorneys who will present argument and indicate if they elect to appear remotely, along with further instructions governing any request to divide argument time; and (3) a general notice regarding appearance for oral argument before the court. If a party wishes to bring to the court's attention new authorities, new legislation, or other matters that were not available in time to be included in the party's brief on the merits, the party must comply with California Rules of Court, rules 8.630(d) and 8.520(d). Sincerely, JORGE E. NAVARRETE Clerk and Executive Officer of the Supreme Court |
| 02/22/2023 | Notice of Unavailability of Counsel Filed | Mark M. Hathaway, counsel for appellant requests oral argument not be set May 18-31, 2023. |
| 02/23/2023 | Letter sent to: |
Mark M. Hathaway, counsel for appellant Dear Counsel: The court has directed me to thank you for your letter dated February 22, 2023, and to advise you that it has concluded that your request to avoid the potential oral argument dates of May 22-26, 2023, is supported by good cause. Please immediately update the court on an ongoing basis if additional conflicts constituting good cause arise. As you were previously informed, once the court files an order setting this case for oral argument, that date will not be changed absent exceptional cause, such as a medical emergency. Sincerely, JORGE E. NAVARRETE Clerk and Executive Officer of the Supreme Court |
| 04/19/2023 | Case ordered on calendar | To be argued on Tuesday, May 9, 2023, at 1:30 pm, in San Francisco. Due to scheduled upgrades to the audio-visual system in the San Francisco courtroom, the May 9-10, 2023 oral argument session will be conducted with all justices and counsel participating remotely. |
| 05/05/2023 | Order filed | The motion to strike filed by respondents Ainsley Carry and University of Southern California on April 13, 2021 is granted. We disregard those portions of the answering brief filed by appellant Matthew Boermeester on March 12, 2021 that cite or discuss evidence not contained within the administrative record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184, fn. 1; Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1066, fn. 35.) |
| 05/09/2023 | Cause argued and submitted | |
| 07/28/2023 | Notice of forthcoming opinion posted | To be filed Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. |
| 07/31/2023 | Opinion filed: Judgment reversed |
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for it to determine in the first instance the remaining claims Boermeester raised on appeal that the Court of Appeal expressly declined to reach. Majority Opinion by Groban, J. -- joined by Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ. |
| 08/31/2023 | Remittitur issued | |
| 09/12/2023 | Returned record | Two doghouses. |
| 09/13/2023 | Received: | Receipt of remittitur. |
| 11/08/2023 | Received: | Letter from the Supreme Court of the United States: The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on October 30, 2023 and placed on the docket November 2, 2023 as No. 23-464. |
| 12/18/2023 | Received: | Letter from the Supreme Court of the United States: The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case is denied. |
Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.