Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

by

Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

By Phyllis W. Cheng

Phyllis W. Cheng is a Partner in the Employment Group at DLA Piper LLP (US) (www.dlaiper.com). She prepares the Labor & Employment Case Law Alert, a free "electronic alert service" on new cases for Section members. To subscribe online at http://www.calbar.ca.gov, log onto "My State Bar Profile" and follow the instructions under "Change My E-mail Addresses and List Subscriptions."

ARBITRATION/PREEMPTION

Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc., 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 845 (2012), review granted, 154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 73 (2013). S208345/B237173.

Petition for review after reversal and remand of denial of petition to compel arbitration. Is an arbitration clause in an employment application that provides, "I agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application" unenforceable as substantively unconscionable for lack of mutuality, or does the language create a mutual agreement to arbitrate all such disputes? (See Roman v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. App. 4th 1462 (2009).) Fully briefed.

Leos v. Darden Restaurants, 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 384 (2013), review granted, 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 699 (2013). S212511/B241630.

Petition for review after reversal of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Briefing deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issue in Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. Holding for lead case.

Mayers v. Volt Mgmt. Corp., 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 657 (2012), review granted, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 807 (2012). S200709/G045036.

Petition for review after affirmance of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC. Holding for lead case.

McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494 (2014), review granted, 185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430 (2015). S224086/G049838.

Petition for review after reversal of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 321 (2011) preempt the California rule (Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans, 21 Cal. 4th 1066 (1999); Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 303 (2003)) that statutory claims for public injunctive relief are not subject to compulsory private arbitration? Opening brief due.

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 19 (2011), review granted, 139 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2 (2012) . S199119/B228027.

Petition for review after affirmance of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 321 (2011), preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Submitted/opinion due.

[Page 38]

Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, 174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 672 (2014), review granted, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2014). S220812/B244412.

Petition for review after reversal of order granting defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his individual claims, as well as defendants’ motion to dismiss all class claims without prejudice. Does the trial court or the arbitrator decide whether an arbitration agreement provides for class arbitration if the agreement itself is silent on the issue? Fully briefed.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Laffitte v. Robert Halflnt’l (Brennan), 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 136 (2014), review granted, 184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 78 (2015). S222996/ B249253.

Petition for review after the court of appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. Does Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25 (1977) permit a trial court to anchor its calculation of a reasonable attorneys’ fees award in a class action on a percentage of the common fund recovered? Respondent’s brief due.

FIREFIGHTERS PROCEDURAL BILL OF RIGHTS AC

Poole v. Orange Cnty. Fire Auth., 164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 191 (2013), review granted, 168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195 (2014). S215300/G047691.

Petition for review after reversal and remand of judgment. Did a daily log about firefighters, which was maintained by a supervisor and used by the supervisor to prepare annual performance evaluations, qualify under the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 3250-3262) as a personnel file and/or as a file used for personnel purposes? Submitted; opinion due.

PREVAILING PARTY ANDS COSTS

DeSaulles v. Community Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula, 171 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673 (2014), review granted, 174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2014). S219236/H038184.

Petition for review after reversal of order awarding costs. When plaintiff employee dismissed her action in exchange for the defendant’s payment of a monetary settlement, was she the prevailing party for purposes of an award of costs under section 1032(a) (4) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, because she was "the party with a net monetary recovery," or was defendant the prevailing party because it was "a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered?" Fully briefed.

QUIT/RETIRE

McLean v. State of Cal., 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 734 (2014), review granted, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 381 (2014). S221554/C074515.

Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of judgment. (1) When bringing a putative class action to recover penalties against an "employer" under Cal. Labor Code section 203, may a former state employee sue the "State of California" instead of the specific agency for which the employee previously worked? (2) Do Labor Code sections 202 and 203, which provide a right of action for an employee who "quits" his or her employment, authorize a suit by an employee who retires? Fully briefed.

WAGE AND HOUR

Augustus v. ABM Security Servs., Inc., 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 676 (2014), review granted, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 2460 (2015). S224853/B243788.

Petition for review after reversal of judgment. (1) Do Cal. Labor Code section 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4-2001 require that employees be relieved of all duties during rest breaks? (2) Are security guards who remain on call during rest breaks performing work during that time under the analysis of Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., 60 Cal. 4th 833 (2015)? Opening brief due.

[Page 39]