Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

JurisdictionCalifornia,United States
AuthorBy Phyllis W. Cheng
Publication year2020
CitationVol. 43 No. 4
CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

By Phyllis W. Cheng

Phyllis W. Cheng is a mediator at ADR Services, Inc., and is on the mediation panels for the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, and U.S. District Court, Central District of California. 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."

DISCRIMINATION / HARASSMENT / RETALIATION

Bonni v. St. Joseph Health Sys., 13 Cal. App. 5th 851 (2017), review granted, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 684 (2017); S244148/G052367

Petition for review after reversal granting anti-SLAPP motion. Further action in this matter deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. S239686 (decided July 22, 2019; 7 Cal. 5th 871) or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. Fully briefed.

Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distrib. Servs., 47 Cal. App. 5th 532 (2020), review granted, 267 Cal. Rptr. 3d 203 (2020); S262699/B294872

Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. (1) In a cause of action alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment resulting in a failure to promote in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, did the statute of limitations to file an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing begin to run when the successful candidate was offered and accepted the position, or when that promotion later took effect, if there is no evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the promotion on the earlier date? (2) Was it proper for the court of appeal to award costs on appeal under rule 8.278 of the California Rules of Court against an unsuccessful FEHA claimant, in the absence of a finding that the underlying claims were objectively frivolous? Opening brief due.

PUBLIC WORKS

Busker v. Wabtec Corp., 903 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2018); S251135/9th Cir. No. 17-55165

Request under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that the supreme court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Does work installing electrical equipment on locomotives and rail cars (i.e., the "onboard work" for Metrolink's [Positive Train Control (PTC)] project) fall within the definition of "public works" under Labor Code § 1720(a)(1), either (1) as constituting "construction" or "installation" under the statute, or (2) as being integral to other work performed for the PTC project on the wayside (i.e., the "field installation work")? Fully briefed.

Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., 913 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2019); S253574/9th Cir. No. 17-15221

Request under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that the supreme court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Is operating engineers' offsite "mobilization work"—including the transportation to and from a public works site of roadwork grinding equipment—performed "in the execution of [a] contract for public work," (Labor Code § 1772), such that it entitles workers to "not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed" pursuant to Labor Code § 1771? Fully briefed.

RETIREMENT / PENSIONS

Hipsher v. Los Angeles Cnty. Employees, 24 Cal. App. 5th 740 (2018), review granted, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791 (2018); S250244/B276486 & B276486M

Petition for review after affirmance and modification of grant of peremptory writ of mandate. Further action deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Retirement Ass'n, S247095 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Holding for lead case.

Marin Ass'n of Public Employees v. Marin Cnty. Employees' Retirement Ass'n, 2 Cal. App. 5th 674 (2016), review granted, 210 Cal. Rptr. 3d 15 (2016); S237460/A139610

Petition for...

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