Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

JurisdictionCalifornia,United States
AuthorPhyllis W. Cheng
CitationVol. 37 No. 4
Publication year2023


Phyllis W. Cheng


Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., nonpublished opinion, 2022 WL 1073583 (2022), review granted (July 20, 2022); S274671/G059860, G060198

Petition after affirmance of order denying a petition to compel arbitration. Whether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that are "premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by" the aggrieved employee (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1916 (2022); see CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 2698, 2699(a) maintains statutory standing to pursue "PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees" (Viking River Cruises, 142 S. Ct. at 1916) in court or in any other forum the parties agree is suitable. Submitted/opinion due.

Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club, Inc., 78 Cal. App. 5th 470 (2022), review granted, 297 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 (Mem) (Aug. 24, 2022); S275121/B310458

Petition for review after reversal of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Does California's test for determining whether a party has waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation remain valid after the United States Supreme Court decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 142 S. Ct. 1708 (2022)? Fully briefed.

Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., 75 Cal. App. 5th 365 (2021), review granted, 2022 WL 2037698 (Mem) (June 1, 2022); S273802/B309408

Petition for review after affirmance of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that a provision of an arbitration agreement allowing for recovery of interim attorney's fees after a successful motion to compel arbitration, was so substantively unconscionable that it rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable? Fully briefed.

Zhang v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. App. 5th 167 (2022), review granted, 304 Cal. Rptr. 3d 549 (Mem) (Feb. 15, 2023); S277736/B314386

Petition for review after denial of petition for writ of mandate. (1) If an employer files a motion to compel arbitration in a non-California forum pursuant to a contractual forum-selection clause, and an employee raises as a defense CAL. LAB. CODE § 925, which prohibits an employer from requiring a California employee to agree to a provision requiring the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California, is the court in the non-California forum one of "competent jurisdiction" (CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 1281.4) such that the motion to compel requires a mandatory stay of the California proceedings? (2) Does the presence of a delegation clause in an employment contract delegating issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator prohibit a California court from enforcing CAL. LAB. CODE § 925 in opposition to the employer's stay motion? Answer brief due.


Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, 31 F.4th 1268 (9th Cir. 2022); cert. granted (Jun. 22, 2022); S274191/9th Cir. No. 21-15963

Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of...

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