Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: By Phyllis W. Cheng
• Publication year: 2015
• Citation: Vol. 29 No. 4

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.dlaiper.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."

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.

Mayers v. Volt Mgmt. Corp., 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 657 (2012), review granted, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 807 (2012). S200709/G045036.

Petition for review after affirmance of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC. 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. §§ 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? Opening brief due.

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 19 (2011), review granted, 139 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2 (2012) . S199119/B228027.

Petition for review after affirmance of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 321 (2011), preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Submitted/opinion due.

[Page 38]

Sandquist v. Lebo...