Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

• 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? Answer 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? Answer brief due.

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.

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 (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? Reply brief due.

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...