Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

Publication year2024
CitationVol. 38 No. 2
AuthorPhyllis W. Cheng
CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

AUTHOR*

Phyllis W. Cheng

ARBITRATION

Basith v. Lithia Motors, Inc., 90 Cal. App. 5th 951 (2023); review granted, 2023 WL 5114947 (Aug. 9, 2023); S280258/B316098

The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., S280256/B314490 (see Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court.

Holding for the lead case.

Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, 90 Cal. App. 5th 919 (2023), review granted, 2023 WL 5114942 (Aug. 9, 2023); S280256/B314490

Petition for review after reversal of order denying a petition to compel arbitration. 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?

Answer brief due.

Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club, Inc., 78 Cal. App. 5th 470 (2022); review granted, 297 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 (Mem) (Aug. 24, 2022); S275121/B310458

Petition for review after reversal of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Does California's test for determining whether a party has waived the right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation remain valid after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 142 S. Ct. 1708 (2022)?

Fully briefed.

Ramirez v. Charter Comm., Inc., 75 Cal. App. 5th 365 (2021); review granted, 2022 WL 2037698 (Mem) (June 1, 2022); S273802/B309408

Petition for review after affirmance of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Did the court of appeal err in holding that a provision of an arbitration agreement that allowed recovery of interim attorney's fees after a successful motion to compel arbitration was so substantively unconscionable that it rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable?

Fully briefed.

Zhang v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. App. 5th 167 (2022); review granted, 304 Cal. Rptr. 3d 549 (Mem) (Feb. 15, 2023); S277736/B314386

Petition for review after denial of petition for writ of mandate.

  1. If an employer files a motion to compel arbitration in a non-California forum pursuant to a contractual forum selection clause, and an employee raises as a defense CAL. LAB. CODE § 925, which prohibits an employer from requiring a California employee to agree to a provision requiring the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California, is the court in the non-California forum one of "competent jurisdiction" (CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 1281.4) such that the motion to compel requires a mandatory stay...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT