Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: Phyllis W. Cheng
• Citation: Vol. 37 No. 5
• Publication year: 2023

CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

AUTHOR^*

Phyllis W. Cheng

ARBITRATION

Gregg v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 89 Cal. App. 5th 786 (2023), review granted, 2023 WL 4004338 (June 14, 2023); S279722/B302925

Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. The court ordered briefing deferred pending the decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which presents the following issue: Whether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (CAL. LAB. CODE § 2698, et seq.) 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 and 2699(a)), which maintain statutory standing to pursue "PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees" (142 S. Ct. at 1916) in court or in any other forum the parties agree is suitable.

Review granted/holding for lead case, Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which was decided on July 17, 2023: 2023 WL 4553702.

Piplack v. In-n-Out Burgers, 88 Cal. App. 5th 128 (2023), review granted, 2023 WL 4004218 (Mem) (June 14, 2023); S279546/G061098

Petition for review after reversal in part and remand in part and an order denying petition to compel arbitration. The court ordered briefing deferred pending the decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which presents the issue noted above.

Review granted/holding for lead case, Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which was decided on July 17, 2023: 2023 WL 4553702.

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 an order denying petition to compel arbitration. The issue presented: Whether California's test for determining whether a party has waived the right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation remains valid after the U.S. 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. The court will consider whether the court of appeal erred 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 agreement unenforceable.

Fully briefed.

Seifu v. Lyft, 89 Cal. App. 5th 1129 (2023), review granted, 2023 WL 4004223 (June 14, 2023); S279932/B301774

Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., as described above in the summary of Gregg v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Review granted/holding for lead case, Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which was decided on July 17, 2023: 2023 WL 4553702.

[Page 28]

Zhang v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. App. 5th 167 (2022), review granted, 304...