I doubt this is an emerging trend, but August opens up with about as much dissent in the California Supreme Court as we've seen in a while.
Admittedly, there are only two opinions today, but the Cal Supremes are atypically fractured in both.
The first case involves whether one plaintiff in a PAGA suit is allowed to intervene to contest a proposed settlement of a different PAGA suit brought by a different plaintiff but that would effectively bar the first plaintiff's action. Justice Jenkins authors that majority opinion, which garners a total of five votes, holding that intervention isn't automatically allowed, but Justice Liu dissents (joined by Justice Evans), and Justice Kruger authors a separate concurring opinion joined by Justice Groban.
The second case is about what standards the appellate courts should employ to decide whether it was harmless error to not have a jury decide the relevant aggravating factors necessary to justify imposition of an upper sentencing term, a procedure required as of 2022 and applicable to cases that were on direct appeal as of that date. This one's even closer. Justice Corrigan authors the majority opinion, for which there are exactly four votes. Justice Kruger partially concurs and partially dissents, joined by Justice Jenkins. And Chief Justice Guerrero dissents, for a 4-2-1. (Which sounds kinda like a difficult split in bowling, TBH.)
Splits like these wouldn't even be worth comment if they came out of the U.S. Supreme Court; there, they happen virtually every single day. But California doesn't typically see days like today.
So August starts off with a bang.
