Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

• Citation: Vol. 30 No. 3
• Publication year: 2016
• Author: By Phyllis W. Cheng

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.dlapiper.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."

AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 261, review granted, 191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 497 (2015). S227243/F068526/F068676.

Petitions for review after reversal of Agricultural Labor Relations Board decision and denial of petition for peremptory writ of mandate. (1) Does the statutory "Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation" process (Cal. Labor Code sections 1164-1164.13) violate the equal protection clauses of the state and federal Constitutions? (2) Do the "Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation" statutes effect an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? (3) May an employer oppose a certified union's request for referral to the "Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation" process by asserting that the union has "abandoned" the bargaining unit? Reply brief due.

Tri-Fanucchi Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 247, review granted, 191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 497 (2015). S227270/F069419.

Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of a decision of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. (1) May an employer assert as a defense to a request for collective bargaining under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Cal. Labor Code sections 1140 et seq.) that the certified union has "abandoned" the bargaining unit? (2) Did the Board err in granting "make whole" relief (Cal. Labor Code section 1160.3) as a remedy for the employer's refusal to bargain with the union? Reply brief due.

ARBITRATION/PREEMPTION

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. (decided March 28, 2016). 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. sections 1 et seq.), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 321 (2011), preempt the California rule, see 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? Fully briefed.

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.

Universal Protection Serv. v. Superior Court, 184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382 (2015), review granted, 188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371 (2015). S225450/D066919.

Petition for review after affirmance of an order granting a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. Briefing deferred pending decision in Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive. Holding for lead case.

ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

Laffitte v. Robert Half Int'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? Fully briefed.

CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES ACT

Connor v. First Student, Inc., 191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 404 (2015), review granted, 195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2015). S229428/B256075.

Petition for review after reversal of judgment. Is the Investigative...