Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court
| Jurisdiction | California,United States |
| Author | By Phyllis W. Cheng |
| Publication year | 2016 |
| Citation | Vol. 30 No. 4 |
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."
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 236 Cal. App. 4th 1024 (2015), 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? Fully briefed.
Tri-Fanucchi Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 236 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (2015), 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 1140-1166.3) 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? Fully briefed.
Leos v. Darden Restaurants, 217 Cal. App. 4th 473 (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., 62 Cal. 4th 1237 (2016). Holding for lead case.
McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 232 Cal. App. 4th 753 (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 1-16), 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, 228 Cal. App. 4th 65 (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? Submitted/opinion due.
Universal Protection Serv. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal. App. 4th 1128 (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.
Laffitte v. Robert Half Int'l (Brennan), 231 Cal. App. 4th 860 (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? Submitted/opinion due.
Connor v. First Student, Inc., 239 Cal. App. 4th 526 (2015), review granted, 195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2015). S229428/B256075.
Petition for review after reversal of judgment. Is the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Cal. Civil Code sections 1786-1786.60) unconstitutionally vague as applied to background checks conducted on a company's employees, because persons and entities subject to both that Act and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Cal. Civil Code sections 1785.1-1785.36) cannot determine which statute applies? Fully briefed.
[Page 21]
Dhillon v. John Muir Health, unpublished opinion, review granted, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 1946 (2015). S224472/A143195.
Petition for review after dismissal of appeal from an order on a petition for writ of administrative mandate. Is a trial court order granting in part and denying in part a physician's petition for writ of administrative mandate regarding a hospital's disciplinary action and remanding the matter to the hospital for further administrative proceedings an appealable order? Fully briefed.
Williams v. Superior Court, 236 Cal. App. 4th 1151, review granted, 191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 497 (2015). S227228/B259967.
Petition for review after denial of a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate. (1) Is the plaintiff in a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code sections 2698-2699.5) entitled to discovery of the names and contact information of other "aggrieved employees" at the beginning of the proceeding, or is the plaintiff first required to show good cause in order to have access to such information? (2) In ruling on such...
To continue reading
Request your trial