Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court
| Citation | Vol. 31 No. 1 |
| Publication year | 2017 |
| Author | By Phyllis W. Cheng |
By Phyllis W. Cheng
Phyllis W. Cheng is a private mediator in Los Angeles (www.Mediate.Work), 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."
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 a decision of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board 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.
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 an order denying a 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? Oral argument held December 7, 2016.
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. Civ. Code sections 1785.1-1785.36) cannot determine which statute applies? Fully briefed.
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.
Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyers Constr. Co., Inc., 9th Cir. No. 14-56120; 834 F.3d 998 (2016); S236765
Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that the California Supreme Court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Is there is an "occurrence" under an employer's commercial general liability policy when an injured third party brings claims against the employer for the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee who intentionally injured the third party? Opening brief due.
[Page 23]
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 a request for employee contact information, should the trial court first determine whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial