Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

JurisdictionCalifornia,United States
AuthorBy Phyllis W. Cheng
Publication year2020
CitationVol. 34 No. 5
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.

INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen, 930 F. 3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2019); S256927/9th Cir. No. 18-15258

Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that the supreme court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the Ninth Circuit. Does § 16600 of the Business and Professions Code void a contract by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with another business? Is a plaintiff required to plead an independently wrongful act in order to state a claim for intentional interference with a contract that can be terminated by a party at any time, or does that requirement apply only to at-will employment contracts? Submitted/opinion 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 "on-board 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

Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Retirement Ass'n, 19 Cal. App. 5th 61 (2018), review granted, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 681 (2018); S247095/A141913

Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of judgment. Did statutory amendments to the County Employees' Retirement Law (Government Code § 31450 et seq.) made by the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (Government Code § 7522 et seq.) reduce the scope of the pre-existing definition of pensionable compensation and thereby impair employees' vested rights protected by the contracts clauses of the state and federal Constitutions? Submitted/opinion due.

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...

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