GMSR: California Supreme Court Watch - A list of all civil cases now pending before the California Supreme Court

We present here a list of all civil cases now pending before the California Supreme Court, with descriptions from the Court’s official news releases. Each entry identifies the case’s practice areas and includes a link to the Court of Appeal opinion and to the Supreme Court’s docket. You can search for cases by practice area or search for specific words by using your browser’s “find” command, and the case numbers will link you to the Supreme Court dockets. Cases will continue to appear for a month after decision, with a copy of the opinion.

81 Results

Practice Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement
Keywords: Arbitration agreement enforceability; CC&Rs; unconscionability; homeowners associations
#12-12 Promenade at Playa Vista Homeowners Assn. v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc., S198722. (B225086; 200 Cal.App.4th 849; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC424950.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, S186149 (#10-127), which presents the following issues: (1) Is a homeowners association bound by an arbitration provision contained in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for a common interest development that were executed and recorded prior to the time the association came into existence? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err by applying the state law doctrine of unconscionability only to the arbitration provision, and not to other provisions in the covenants, conditions and restrictions, in light of federal law prohibiting the application of state law to treat arbitration provisions differently from other provisions of the same agreement? (See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265.)
Review granted/briefing deferred 01/25/2012
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-03 City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638. (E052400; 200 Cal.App.4th 885; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC10009872.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities, and standing to challenge such ordinances.
Review granted 01/18/2012
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-04 People v. G3 Holistic, Inc., S198395. (E051663; nonpublished opinion; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVRS1002649.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities, and standing to challenge such ordinances.
Review granted 01/18/2012
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-05 Pack v. Superior Court, S197169. (B228781; 199 Cal.App.4th 1070; Los Angeles County Superior Court; NC055010.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities, and standing to challenge such ordinances.
Review granted 01/18/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#12-06 Traudt v. City of Dana Point, S197700. (G044130; 199 Cal.App.4th 886; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2010-00373287.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a civil action. This case presents issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities, and standing to challenge such ordinances.
Review granted 01/18/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Attorneys fees; meal and rest periods; Labor Code sections 226.7, 218.5, 1194
#12-11 Zelasko-Barrett v. Brayton-Purcell, LLP, S198438. (A131601; nonpublished opinion; Marin County Superior Court; CIV095856.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order awarding attorney fees in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827 (#10-132), which presents the following issues: (1) Does Labor Code section 1194 apply to a cause of action alleging meal and rest period violations (Lab. Code, § 226.7) or may attorney’s fees be awarded under Labor Code section 218.5? (2) Is our analysis affected by whether the claims for meal and rest periods are brought alone or are accompanied by claims for minimum wage and overtime?
Review granted/briefing deferred 01/18/2012
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement, Civil Procedure, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Labor Commissioner jurisdiction, Federal Arbitration Act
#09-55 Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, S174475. (B204902; 174 Cal.App.4th 546; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS107161.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. This case presents the following issues: (1) Can a mandatory employment arbitration agreement be enforced prior to the conclusion of an administrative proceeding conducted by the Labor Commissioner concerning an employee’s statutory wage claim? (2) Was the Labor Commissioner’s jurisdiction over employee’s statutory wage claim divested by the Federal Arbitration Act under Preston v. Ferrer (2008) __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 978, 169 L.Ed.2d 917?

01/11/2012: On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the court directed the parties to brief the significance of AT&T Mobility LLC. v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742, to the issues in this case.
Supplemental briefing ordered 01/11/2012
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Attorneys fees; meal and rest periods; Labor Code sections 226.7, 218.5, 1194
#11-146 United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases, S197722. (B227556; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; (JCCP4606.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order awarding attorney fees in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827 (#10-132), which presents the following issues: (1) Does Labor Code section 1194 apply to a cause of action alleging meal and rest period violations (Lab. Code, § 226.7) or may attorney’s fees be awarded under Labor Code section 218.5? (2) Is our analysis affected by whether the claims for meal and rest periods are brought alone or are accompanied by claims for minimum wage and overtime?
Review granted/briefing deferred 12/21/2011
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-145 Hillside Memorial Park & Mortuary v. Golden State Water Co., S197767. (B225058; 199 Cal.App.4th 658; Los Angeles County Superior Court; C506806.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed a post-judgment order in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending further order of the court.
Review granted/briefing deferred 12/21/2011
See the Hillside Memorial Park Petition for Review
See the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-143 Estate of Giraldin, S197694. (G041811; 199 Cal.App.4th 577; Orange County Superior Court; A240697.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed orders in a probate proceeding. The court limited review to the following issue: When the settlor of a revocable inter vivos trust appoints, during his lifetime, someone other than himself to act as trustee, once the settlor dies and the trust becomes irrevocable, do the remainder beneficiaries have standing to sue the trustee for breaches of fiduciary duty committed during the period of revocability?
Review granted 12/21/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-137 Vandermost v. Bowen, S198387. Original proceeding. The court issued an order to show cause directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues: In addition to addressing issues relating to what relief, if any, this court should order in the event the referendum regarding the Senate redistricting map qualifies for the November 2012 ballot, the parties are directed to address the following jurisdictional issues: (1) What standard or test should this court apply in determining whether a referendum is “likely to qualify” within the meaning of article XXI, section 3, subdivision (b)(2) of the California Constitution, for purposes of deciding when a petition for writ of mandate may be filed in this court under that constitutional provision? (2) Is this court’s authority to entertain a petition for writ of mandate prior to the formal qualification of a referendum petition limited to the circumstances set forth in article XXI, section 3, subdivision (b)(2), or does this court have other authority (including inherent authority) to entertain such a petition even if it cannot yet be determined whether such a referendum is “likely to qualify” for placement on the ballot?
Order to show cause issued 12/09/2011 - Oral Argument 01/10/2012 - Decided 01/27/2012
See the Supreme Court opinion

#11-134 El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, S196830. (B209056; 198 Cal.App.4th 664, mod. 198 Cal.App.4th 1234c; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS105623.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Could the executive committee of the hospital medical staff delegate to the hospital governing board its authority to select the hearing officer and the physician members of the peer review panel to hear a physician’s challenge to the governing board’s denial of his application for reappointment to the hospital medical staff? (2) If the hospital by-laws did not permit this procedure, was the peer review panel selected by the governing board “improperly constituted,” requiring a new peer review procedure conducted by a new hearing panel selected by the executive committee?
Review granted 11/30/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: Tort Litigation
#11-133 Woodard v. Crane Co., S196969. (B219366; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC387774.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in O’Neil v. Crane Co., S177401 (#09-85), which presents the following issue: Can the manufacturer of valves and fittings installed on Navy ships, and designed to be used with asbestos packing, gaskets, and insulation, rely on the “component parts” defense or related theories to preclude strict liability for asbestosis injuries years later suffered by seamen on those ships?
Review granted/briefing deferred 11/16/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-130 Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., S196568. (C064627; 198 Cal.App.4th 29; San Joaquin County Superior Court; CV033425.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: Did the trial court err in dismissing plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) on grounds of after-acquired evidence and unclean hands, based on plaintiff’s use of false documentation to obtain employment in the first instance? Did Senate Bill No. 1818 (2001–2002 Reg. Session) preclude application of those doctrines in this case? (See Civ. Code, § 3339; Gov. Code, § 7285; Health & Saf. Code, § 24000; Lab. Code, § 1171.5.)
Review granted 11/16/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-127 Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education, S195852. (B212966; 197 Cal.App.4th 436; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS112656.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does due process require an evidentiary hearing before a neutral hearing officer or decision-maker prior to the revocation of a charter school’s charter by a county board of education?
Review granted 10/26/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-125 Concerned Citizens for Responsible Government v. West Point Fire Protection Dist., S195152. (C061110; 196 Cal.App.4th 1427; Calaveras County Superior Court; CV33828.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Was the levy imposed by defendant for the purpose of funding fire protection services a valid assessment within the meaning of California Constitution, article XIII D, section 2, subdivision (b)?
Review granted 10/19/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Hourly workers' rights
#11-119 Santos v. Vitas Healthcare Corp. of California, S195866. (B222645; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC359356.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an order denying class certification in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, S166350 (#08-157), which presents issues concerning the proper interpretation of California’s statutes and regulations governing an employer’s duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers.
Review granted/briefing deferred 09/28/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Insurance Law
Keywords: Unfair competition, insurer misrepresentations, Moradi-Shalal, Business and Professions Code section 17200
#11-118 Hughes v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., S195069. (B224990; 196 Cal.App.4th 754; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC426745.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order dismissing a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Zhang v. Superior Court, S178542 (#10-16), which presents the following issues: (1) Can an insured bring a cause of action against its insurer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based on allegations that the insurer misrepresents and falsely advertises that it will promptly and properly pay covered claims when it has no intention of doing so? (2) Does Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 bar such an action?
Review granted/briefing deferred 09/28/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-111 Sierra Club v. Superior Court, S194708. (G044138; 195 Cal.App.4th 1537; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2009-00121878.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Is Orange County’s computer database of public land records exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) as a “computer mapping system[]” (Gov. Code, § 6254.9, subd. (b)), or is that term limited to computer programs that read such a database?
Review granted 09/14/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-107 Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., S195031. (H034535; 196 Cal.App.4th 566; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV089189.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the existence of a state regulatory scheme for amusement parks preclude application of the doctrine of “primary assumption of risk” with respect to the park’s operation of a bumper car ride? (2) Does the doctrine apply to bar recovery by a rider of a bumper car ride against the owner of an amusement park or is the doctrine limited to “active sports”? (3) Are owners of amusement parks subject to a special version of the doctrine that imposes upon them a duty to take steps to eliminate or decrease any risks inherent in their rides?
Review granted 08/31/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Insurance Law
Keywords: Continuous property damages, stacking of limits
#11-106 Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp. v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania, S194724. (B222310; 196 Cal.App.4th 140; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC249550.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in State of California v. Continental Ins. Co., S170560 (#09-08), which presents the following issues: (1) When continuous property damage occurs during the periods of several successive liability policies, is each insurer liable for all damage both during and outside its period up to the amount of the insurer’s policy limits? (2) If so, is the “stacking” of limits — i.e., obtaining the limits of successive policies — permitted?
Review granted/briefing deferred 08/24/2011
See the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania Petition for Review
See the Kaiser Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-104 Sander v. State Bar of California, S194951. (A128647; 196 Cal.App.4th 614; San Francisco County Superior Court; CPF08508880.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) What ground, if any, exists for finding that the information sought by plaintiffs is information that is subject to public disclosure? (2) What is the effect, if any, of the representation of confidentiality made by the State Bar to the individuals from whom the information was collected? (3) Does the form in which the requested information is regularly maintained affect whether the State Bar must provide the requested information?
Review granted 08/24/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-103 In re Marriage of Valli, S193990. (B222435; 195 Cal.App.4th 776; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BD414038.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a marital dissolution action. This case includes the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that an insurance policy on the husband’s life was the wife’s separate property upon dissolution of the marriage, even though the policy was purchased during the marriage and the premiums prior to the couple’s separation were paid with community funds, because the policy listed the wife as the owner?
Review granted 08/24/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-102 Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization, S194121. (D056943; 195 Cal.App.4th 285; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2008-00097074-CU-MC-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for refund of property taxes. This case presents the following issue: How do limitations on the taxation of intangible property (see Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 2; Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 110, 212; Roehm v. County of Orange (1948) 32 Cal.2d 280) apply to the assessment of a power plant subject to annual assessment by the State Board of Equalization (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 19), when the owner of the plant used emission reduction credits (see Health & Saf. Code, § 40709) to offset its emissions and obtain authorization to construct the plant?
Review granted 08/24/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement
Keywords: Arbitration agreement enforceability, CC&Rs, unconscionability, homeowners associations
#11-100 Diaz v. Bunkey, S194150. (B225548; 195 Cal.App.4th 315, mod. 195 Cal.App.4th 1274d; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court; PR090337.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a probate proceeding. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, S186149 (#10-127), which includes the following issue: Is a homeowners association bound by an arbitration provision contained in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for a common interest development that were executed and recorded prior to the time the association came into existence?
Review granted/briefing deferred 08/10/2011
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-98 Hayes v. County of San Diego, S193997. (9th Cir. No. 09-55644; __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 2315191; Southern District of California, 3:07–cv–01738–DMS–JMA.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As restated by the court, the question presented is: “Whether under California negligence law, liability can arise from tactical conduct and decisions employed by law enforcement preceding the use of deadly force.”
Review granted 08/10/2011

See the Ninth Circuit request for decision under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548

#11-97 People ex re. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., S194388. (B220966; 195 Cal.App.4th 765; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC397600.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) that is based on a trucking company’s alleged violation of state labor and insurance laws “related to the price, route, or service” of the company and, therefore, preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. § 14501)?
Review granted 08/10/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-96 DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara, S194501. (H034160; 195 Cal.App.4th 1327; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV089159.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did plaintiff substantially comply with the statutory requirement that her claim against the county for medical negligence be presented “to the clerk, secretary or auditor thereof” or mailed to “the governing body”(Gov. Code, § 915, subd. (a)) by delivering the claim to the risk management department of the county hospital where the injury allegedly occurred?
Review granted 08/10/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

#11-95 Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., S193493. (H034826; 194 Cal.App.4th 584; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV112520, CV115283.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is a person’s good faith belief in the validity of a marriage measured by an objective or subjective standard for the purpose of determining the person’s status as a putative spouse under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60?
Review granted 08/10/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Hourly workers' rights
#11-90 Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, S194064. (B220954; 195 Cal.App.4th 389; Los Angeles County Superior Court; JCCP4510.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying class certification in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, S166350 (#08-157), which presents issues concerning the proper interpretation of California’s statutes and regulations governing an employer’s duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers.
Review granted/briefing deferred 07/20/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Employee furloughs, delegation of powers
#11-82 City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, S192828. (B228732; 193 Cal.App.4th 1159; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS126192.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a petition to compel arbitration. This case presents the following issue: Could grievances challenging the imposition of furloughs on employees covered by a ratified Memorandum of Understanding be referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement, or was arbitration barred as an improper delegation of the city’s discretionary salary-setting and budget-making powers?
Review granted 07/13/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: Loss of consortium, Labor Code section 4558
#11-76 LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court, S192759. (B226240; 193 Cal.App.4th 1413; Los Angeles County Superior Court; VC055585.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a peremptory petition for writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Can the spouse of an injured worker claim damages for loss of consortium in an action at law brought by the injured worker under Labor Code section 4558 for damages allegedly caused by an employer’s knowing removal of or failure to install a safety guard on a power press?
Review granted 06/22/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Government Tort Liability
Keywords: Privacy
#11-67 County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm., S191944. (B217668; 192 Cal.App.4th 1409; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS116993.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Under the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1), do the interests of non-union-member public employees in the privacy of their personal contact information outweigh the interests of the union representing their bargaining unit in obtaining that information in furtherance of its duties as a matter of labor law to provide fair and equal representation of union-member and non-union-member employees within the bargaining unit? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding to the trial court with directions to apply a specific notice procedure to protect such employees’ privacy rights instead of permitting the parties to determine the proper procedure for doing so?
Review granted 06/15/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Statute of limitations, delayed discovery, childhood sexual abuse
#11-64 Doe v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton, S192658. (C064094; nonpublished opinion; San Joaquin County Superior Court; 39-2009-00205174-CU-PO-STK.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Quarry v. Doe 1, S171382 (#09-30), which presents the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the delayed discovery provisions of the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1) for claims of childhood sexual abuse against specified non-perpetrators who knew of the abuse and had the ability to prevent it but failed to do so?
Review granted/briefing deferred 06/08/2011
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Healthcare Law, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Medical malpractice, release, joint tortfeasors, good faith settlement
#11-60 Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, S192768. (B204908; 193 Cal.App.4th 971; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC343985.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Should the common law rule that a release for consideration of one joint tortfeasor operates as a release of the joint and several liability of all joint tortfeasors be abandoned in light of statutory and case law modifications of the joint and several liability rule?
Review granted 06/08/2011
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Hourly workers' rights
#11-57 Tien v. Tenet Heatlhcare Corp., S191756. (B214333; 192 Cal.App.4th 1055; Los Angeles County Superior Court; JCCP4377, BC315897.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying class certification in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, S166350 (#08-157), which presents issues concerning the proper interpretation of California’s statutes and regulations governing an employer’s duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers.
Review granted/briefing deferred 05/18/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Administrative Law, Employment and Agency Law, Insurance Law
Keywords: Overtime compensation
#11-51 Hodge v. Aon Ins. Services, S191415. (B217156; 192 Cal.App.4th 1361; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC265725.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Harris v. Superior Court, S156555 (#07-443), which presents the following issue: Do claims adjusters employed by insurance companies fall within the administrative exemption (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 11040) to the requirement that employees are entitled to overtime compensation?
Review granted/briefing deferred 05/11/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Attorneys fees; meal and rest periods; Labor Code sections 226.7, 218.5, 1194
#11-52 United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases, S191908. (B221709; 192 Cal.App.4th 1425; Los Angeles County Superior Court; JCCP No. 4606.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827 (#10-132), which presents the following issues: (1) Does Labor Code section 1194 apply to a cause of action alleging meal and rest period violations (Lab. Code, § 226.7) or may attorney’s fees be awarded under Labor Code section 218.5? (2) Is our analysis affected by whether the claims for meal and rest periods are brought alone or are accompanied by claims for minimum wage and overtime?
Review granted/briefing deferred 05/11/2011
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Business Litigation, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Experts, Lost profits
#11-46 Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, S191550. (B202789; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC209992.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the trial court err in excluding proffered expert opinion testimony regarding lost profits?
Review granted 04/29/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement
Keywords: Arbitration agreement enforceability, CC&Rs, unconscionability, homeowners associations
#11-44 Villa Vicenza Homeowners Assn. v. Nobel Court Development, LLC, S190805. (D054550; 191 Cal.App.4th 963; San Diego County Superior Court; GIC871604.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, S186149 (#10-127), which presents the following issues: (1) Is a homeowners association bound by an arbitration provision contained in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for a common interest development that were executed and recorded prior to the time the association came into existence? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err by applying the state law doctrine of unconscionability only to the arbitration provision, and not to other provisions in the covenants, conditions and restrictions, in light of federal law prohibiting the application of state law to treat arbitration provisions differently from other provisions of the same agreement? (See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265.)
Review granted/briefing deferred 04/20/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Business Litigation, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Parole evidence rule
#11-40 Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn., S190581. (F058434; 191 Cal.App.4th 611; Fresno County Superior Court; 08CECG01416.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule permit evidence of a contemporaneous factual misrepresentation as to the terms contained in a written agreement at the time of execution, or is such evidence inadmissible under Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association v. Pendergrass (1935) 4 Cal.2d 258, 263, as “a promise directly at variance with the promise of the writing”?
Review granted 04/20/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Constitutional Law
Keywords: Public/private forum, labor, injunctions against picketing, Moscone Act (Code of Civil Procedure section 527.3, Labor Code section 1138.1
#11-38 Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, S191251. (F058716; 192 Cal.App.4th 200; Fresno County Superior Court; 09CECG00349.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a preliminary injunction in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, S185544 (#10-116), which presents the following issues: (1) Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that the parking area and walkway in front of the entrance to plaintiff’s retail store, which is part of a larger shopping center, do not constitute a public forum under Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899 and its progeny? (2) Do the Moscone Act (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.3) and Labor Code section 1138.1, which limit the availability of injunctive relief in labor disputes, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because they afford preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes over speech about other issues?
Review granted/briefing deferred 04/13/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: Civil Code section 1714, Business and Professions Code section 25602, tavern keepers, alcoholic beverages
#11-28 Ennabe v. Manosa, S189577. (B222784; 190 Cal.App.4th 707; Los Angeles County Superior Court; KC053945.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is a person who hosts a party at a residence, and who furnishes alcoholic beverages and charges an admission fee to uninvited guests, a “social host” within the meaning of Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (c), and hence immune from civil liability for furnishing alcoholic beverages? (2) Under the circumstances here, does such a person fall within an exception stated by Business and Professions Code section 25602.1 to the ordinary immunity from civil liability for furnishing alcoholic beverages provided by Business and Professions Code section 25602, subdivision (b)?
Review granted 03/23/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Statute of limitations, delayed discovery, childhood sexual abuse
#11-23 Roe v. Doe, S189814 (C062505; nonpublished opinion; San Joaquin County Superior Court; CV033950.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Quarry v. Doe 1, S171382 (#09-30), which presents the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the delayed discovery provisions of the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1) for claims of childhood sexual abuse against specified non-perpetrators who knew of the abuse and had the ability to prevent it but failed to do so?
Review granted/briefing deferred 03/02/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: Child molestation
#11-17 C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist., S188982. (B217982; 189 Cal.App.4th 1166; Los Angeles County Superior Court; PC044428.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: May a school district be held liable for the negligent hiring, retention or supervision of a school guidance counselor who molests a student, when district employees who hired the counselor knew that the counselor had a history of child molestation?
Review granted 02/23/2011 - Oral Argument 01/05/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Hourly workers' rights
#11-10 Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., S188755. (B216004; 189 Cal.App.4th 751; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC373759.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying class certification in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, S166350 (#08-157), which presents issues concerning the proper interpretation of California’s statutes and regulations governing an employer’s duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers.
Review granted/briefing deferred 01/26/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Administrative Law
Keywords: Public Resources Code section 21177; exhaustion of remedies
#11-05 Tomlinson v. County of Alameda, S188161. (A125471; 188 Cal.App.4th 1406; Alameda County Superior Court; RG08396845.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does Public Resources Code section 21177 require a petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies before filing an action challenging a public agency’s decision that a proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)?
Review granted 01/19/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Administrative Law, Real Property
Keywords: Mobilehome park conversion; coastal zone properties; California Coastal Act; Mello Act; Government Code section 66427.5
#10-137 Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, S187243. (B216515; 187 Cal.App.4th 1461; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS112956.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a petition for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Do the Mello Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65590, 65590.1) and the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.) apply to the conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership if the park is located within the coastal zone? (2) Do the limits imposed by Government Code section 66427.5 on the scope of a hearing on an application for conversion of such a mobilehome park to resident ownership prohibit the local authority from requiring compliance with the Mello Act and the California Coastal Act when the mobilehome park is located within the coastal zone?
Review granted 12/01/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Hourly workers' rights
#10-133 Brookler v. Radioshack Corp., S186357 (B212893; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC313383.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order decertifying a class action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, S166350 (#08-157), which presents issues concerning the proper interpretation of California’s statutes and regulations governing an employer’s duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers.
Review granted/briefing deferred 11/17/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Attorneys fees; meal and rest periods; Labor Code sections 226.7, 218.5, 1194
#10-132 Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827. (C062306; 186 Cal.App.4th 1361; Sacramento County Superior Court; 07AS00032.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an award of attorney fees in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Does Labor Code section 1194 apply to a cause of action alleging meal and rest period violations (Lab. Code, § 226.7) or may attorney’s fees be awarded under Labor Code section 218.5? (2) Is our analysis affected by whether the claims for meal and rest periods are brought alone or are accompanied by claims for minimum wage and overtime?
Review granted 11/17/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Charter schools, collective bargaining agreements, Education Code section 47611.5
#10-129 California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Salinas City Elementary School Dist., S185651. (H033788; 187 Cal.App.4th 91; Monterey County Superior Court; M91905.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in United Teachers Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., S177403 (#09-86), which presents the following issue: Can a school district be required to arbitrate disputes over the granting of a charter school petition under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or does Education Code section 47611.5, subdivision (e), preclude referring such a dispute to arbitration?
Review granted/briefing deferred 11/10/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement
Keywords: Arbitration agreement enforceability; CC&Rs; unconscionability; homeowners associations
#10-127 Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, S186149. (D055442; 187 Cal.App.4th 24; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2008-00096678-CU-CD-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is a homeowners association bound by an arbitration provision contained in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for a common interest development that were executed and recorded prior to the time the association came into existence? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err by applying the state law doctrine of unconscionability only to the arbitration provision, and not to other provisions in the covenants, conditions and restrictions, in light of federal law prohibiting the application of state law to treat arbitration provisions differently from other provisions of the same agreement? (See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265.)
Review granted 11/10/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Taxation
#10-124 City of Alhambra v. County of Los Angeles, S185457. (B218347; 186 Cal.App.4th 537; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS116375.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does Revenue and Taxation Code section 97.75 prohibit a county from taking into account property tax revenues diverted from the county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund to a city under sections 97.68 and 97.70 when determining, pursuant to section 95.3, the city’s share of costs incurred by the county in the assessment, collection, and allocation of property taxes?
Review granted 10/20/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Statute of limitations, discovery rule, continuing violation, unfair competition, Business and Professions Code section 17200
#10-123 Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., S184929. (B213104; 185 Cal.App.4th 1159; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC384674.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) May the continuing violation doctrine, under which a defendant may be held liable for actions that take place outside the limitations period if those actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct within the limitations period, be asserted in an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)? (2) May the continuous accrual doctrine, under which each violation of a periodic obligation or duty is deemed to give rise to a separate cause of action that accrues at the time of the individual wrong, be asserted in such an action? (3) May the delayed discovery rule, under which a cause of action does not accrue until a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position has actual or constructive knowledge of facts giving rise to a claim, be asserted in such an action?
Review granted 10/20/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Hourly workers' rights
#10-121 Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., S184995. (G041702; 185 Cal.App.4th 1363; Orange County Superior Court; 05CC00107.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an order denying class certification in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, S166350 (#08-157), which presents issues concerning the proper interpretation of California’s statutes and regulations governing an employer’s duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers.
Review granted/briefing deferred 10/13/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Constitutional Law
Keywords: Public/private forum, labor, injunctions against picketing, Moscone Act (Code of Civil Procedure section 527.3, Labor Code section 1138.1
#10-116 Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, S185544. (C060413; 186 Cal.App.4th 1078; Sacramento County Superior Court; 34-2008-00008682-CU-OR-GD.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a preliminary injunction in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that the parking area and walkway in front of the entrance to plaintiff’s retail store, which is part of a larger shopping center, do not constitute a public forum under Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899 and its progeny? (2) Do the Moscone Act (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.3) and Labor Code section 1138.1, which limit the availability of injunctive relief in labor disputes, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because they afford preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes over speech about other issues?
Review granted 09/29/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Administrative Law, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Nursing licensure, preemption, Nursing Practice Act (Business and Professions Code section 2700 et seq.)
#10-115 American Nurses Assn. v. O’Connell, S184583. (C061150; 185 Cal.App.4th 393; Sacramento County Superior Court; 07AS04631.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case includes the following issues: (1) Under California law, are designated school personnel who are not licensed nurses allowed to administer insulin to diabetic students pursuant to treating physicians’ orders under a Section 504 Plan (29 U.S.C. § 794; 34 C.F.R. § 104.1 et seq.) or an Individualized Education Program (20 U.S.C. §1414(d))? (2) If not, is California law preempted by federal law?
Review granted 09/29/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Banking law, preemption, Civil Code section 1748.9, credit cards
#10-103 Parks v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., S183703. (G040798; 184 Cal.App.4th 652; Orange County Superior Court; 04CC00598.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is Civil Code section 1748.9, which requires credit card issuers to make certain disclosures on checks issued to cardholders for cash advances from the cardholders’ credit card accounts, preempted by the National Bank Act (12 U.S.C. § 21 et seq.)? (2) Is 12 Code of Federal Regulations section 7.4008, which was promulgated under the National Bank Act by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and which provides that state laws that impair a nationally chartered bank’s non real-estate banking powers are not applicable to nationally chartered banks, a valid regulation?
Review granted 09/01/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Dissolved corporations, statute of limitations, Corporations Code section 2010
#10-98 Greb v. Diamond Internat. Corp., S183365. (A125472; 184 Cal.App.4th 15; San Francisco County Superior Court; 274989.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does Corporations Code section 2010, which does not limit the time for bringing lawsuits against a dissolved corporation, apply to a dissolved foreign corporation, or does the corporate survival law of the state in which the foreign corporation was incorporated apply?
Review granted 08/18/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Judgment enforcement, appeal bonds
#10-94 Rossa v. D. L. Falk Constr., Inc., S183523. (A125567; 184 Cal.App.4th 438; San Mateo County Superior Court; 442294.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a post-judgment order in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d)(1)(F), which permits a successful appellant to recover “the cost to obtain a letter of credit as collateral,” allow the recovery of interest paid on sums borrowed to fund a letter of credit used to secure a surety bond?
Review granted 08/11/2010 - Oral Argument 11/08/2011 - Decided 01/23/2012
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: Asbestos injuries, component parts defense, mesothelioma
#10-81 Walton v. Williams Powell Company, S183059. (B208214; 183 Cal.App.4th 1470; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC361382.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in O’Neil v. Crane Co., S177401 (#09-85), which presents the following issue: Can the manufacturer of valves and fittings installed on Navy ships, and designed to be used with asbestos packing, gaskets, and insulation, rely on the “component parts” defense or related theories to preclude strict liability for asbestosis injuries years later suffered by seamen on those ships?
Review granted/briefing deferred 06/26/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Work product; discovery; witness statements
#10-65 Coito v. Superior Court, S181712. (F057690; 182 Cal.App.4th 758; Stanislaus County Superior Court; 624500.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Is the statement of a witness that is taken in writing or otherwise recorded verbatim by an attorney or the attorney’s representative entitled to the protection of the California work product privilege?
Review granted 06/09/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: Asbestos injuries, component parts defense, mesothelioma
#10-60 Hall v. Warren Pumps LLC, S181357. (B208275; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC373038.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in O’Neil v. Crane Co., S177401 (#09-85), which presents the following issue: Can the manufacturer of valves and fittings installed on Navy ships, and designed to be used with asbestos packing, gaskets, and insulation, rely on the “component parts” defense or related theories to preclude strict liability for asbestosis injuries years later suffered by seamen on those ships?
Review granted/briefing deferred 05/12/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Attorneys fees; California Disabled Persons Act; Americans with Disabilities Act; preemption
#10-57 Jankey v. Lee, S180890. (A123006; 181 Cal.App.4th 1173; San Francisco County Superior Court; 463040.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an award of attorney fees in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is an award of fees to a prevailing defendant under the California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.) inconsistent with, and therefore preempted by, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)?
Review granted 05/12/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Employment discrimination, 'mixed-motive' defense, Fair Employment and Housing Act
#10-55 Pellegrino v. Robert Half International, Inc., S180849. (G039985; 182 Cal.App.4th 87; 06CC04518.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Harris v. Superior Court, S156555 (#07-443), which presents the following issue: Do claims adjusters employed by insurance companies fall within the administrative exemption (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11040) to the requirement that employees are entitled to overtime compensation?
Review granted/briefing deferred 04/30/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Employment discrimination, 'mixed-motive' defense, Fair Employment and Housing Act
#10-46 Harris v. City of Santa Monica, S181004. (B199571; 181 Cal.App.4th 1094; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC341569.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the “mixed-motive” defense apply to employment discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)?
Review granted 04/22/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Insurance Law
Keywords: Unfair competition, insurer misrepresentations, Moradi-Shalal, Business and Professions Code section 17200
#10-16 Zhang v. Superior Court, S178542. (E047207; 178 Cal.App.4th 1081; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVVS701287.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Can an insured bring a cause of action against its insurer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) based on allegations that the insurer misrepresents and falsely advertises that it will promptly and properly pay covered claims when it has no intention of doing so? (2) Does Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 bar such an action?
Review granted 02/10/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: Asbestos injuries, component parts defense, mesothelioma
#10-12 Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc., S178957. (B200006; 179 Cal.App.4th 262; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC352170.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in O’Neil v. Crane Co., S177401 (#09-85), which presents the following issue: Can the manufacturer of valves and fittings installed on Navy ships, and designed to be used with asbestos packing, gaskets, and insulation, rely on the “component parts” defense or related theories to preclude strict liability for asbestosis injuries years later suffered by seamen on those ships?
Review granted/briefing deferred 02/05/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Statute of limitations, delayed discovery, childhood sexual abuse
#10-11 Doe v. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, S178748. (B209557; 178 Cal.App.4th 1382, mod. 179 Cal.App.4th 1029a; Los Angeles County Superior Court; JCCP4297.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Quarry v. Doe 1, S171382 (#09-30), which presents the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the delayed discovery provisions of the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1) for claims of childhood sexual abuse against specified non-perpetrators who knew of the abuse and had the ability to prevent it but failed to do so?
Review granted/briefing deferred 02/05/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Administrative Law, Business Litigation
Keywords: Environmental Law, retrofit control technology, Health and Safety Code section 40440
#10-09 American Coatings Assn., Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (formerly entitled National Paint & Coating Assn, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., S177823. (G040122; 177 Cal.App.4th 1494; Orange County Superior Court; 03CC00007.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does Health and Safety Code section 40440, which requires an air quality district to adopt rules requiring use of the “best available retrofit control technology” for air pollution, authorize the district to require technology that does not yet exist? (2) Is technology “available” if it exists and is being used for some, but not all, applications within a particular product category?
Review granted 01/21/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Charter schools, collective bargaining agreements, Education Code section 47611.5
#09-86 United Teachers Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., S177403. (B214119; 177 Cal.App.4th 863; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS116739.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. This case presents the following issue: Can a school district be required to arbitrate disputes over the granting of a charter school petition under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or does Education Code section 47611.5, subdivision (e), preclude referring such a dispute to arbitration?
Review granted 12/23/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: asbestos injuries, component parts defense, mesothelioma
#09-85 O’Neil v. Crane Co., S177401. (B208225; 177 Cal.App.4th 1019; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC360274.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Can the manufacturer of valves and fittings installed on Navy ships, and designed to be used with asbestos packing, gaskets, and insulation, rely on the “component parts” defense or related theories to preclude strict liability for asbestosis injuries years later suffered by seamen on those ships?
Review granted 12/23/2009 - Oral Argument 11/09/2011 - Decided 01/12/2012
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Crane Co. Petition for Review
See the Warren Pumps Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Business Litigation, Constitutional Law
Keywords: Taxation, unfair competition, Consumers Legal Remedies Act
#09-75 Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, S176146. (B198827; 176 Cal.App.4th 1156; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; 1221332.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Loeffler v. Target Corp., S173972 (# 09-54), which presents the following issue: Does article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution or Revenue and Taxation Code section 6932 bar a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on transactions that were not taxable?
Review granted/briefing deferred 11/19/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Statute of limitations, delayed discovery, childhood sexual abuse
#09-73 D.D. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton, S176451. (C057260; nonpublished opinion; San Joaquin County Superior Court; CV031440.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing in D.D. and L.A. deferred pending decision in Quarry v. Doe 1, S171382 (# 09-30), which presents the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the delayed discovery provisions of the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1) for claims of childhood sexual abuse against specified non-perpetrators who knew of the abuse and had the ability to prevent it but failed to do so?
Review granted/briefing deferred 11/10/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Statute of Limitations, childhood sexual abuse
#09-74 L.A. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton, S176483. (C057895; nonpublished opinion; San Joaquin County Superior Court; CV031343.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing in D.D. and L.A. deferred pending decision in Quarry v. Doe 1, S171382 (# 09-30), which presents the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the delayed discovery provisions of the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1) for claims of childhood sexual abuse against specified non-perpetrators who knew of the abuse and had the ability to prevent it but failed to do so?
Review granted/briefing deferred 11/10/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Business Litigation, Constitutional Law
Keywords: Taxation, unfair competition, Consumers Legal Remedies Act
#09-54 Loeffler v. Target Corp., S173972. (B199287; 173 Cal.App.4th 1229; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC360004.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution or Revenue and Taxation Code section 6932 bar a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on transactions that were not taxable?
Review granted 09/10/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Business Litigation
Keywords: Taxation, income tax credits, enterprise zones
#09-45 Dicon Fiberoptics v. Franchise Tax Bd., S173860. (173 Cal.App.4th 1082; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC367885.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) When an employer claims an income tax credit under Revenue and Taxation Code section 23622.7 for wages allegedly paid to a “qualified employee” in an enterprise zone, does the certifying voucher obtained from a designated public agency constitute conclusive proof the employer is entitled to the tax credit? (2) If not, does the voucher constitute prima facie evidence that the employer is entitled to the credit and shift to the Franchise Tax Board the burden of proving that the employee was not a “qualified employee”?
Review granted 08/20/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Labor law, public contracts, prevailing wage law
#09-46 State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista, S173586. (D052181; 173 Cal.App.4th 567; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2007-00054316-CU-WM-NC.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does California’s prevailing wage law (Lab. Code, § 1720 et seq.) apply to a charter city when it contracts to construct public works projects with municipal funds?

9/1/10: The court ordered the issues to be briefed and argued limited to the question whether the Prevailing Wage Law (Lab. Code, § 1720 et seq.) applies to charter cities and excluded the question whether application of the Prevailing Wage Law to charter cities would constitute an unfunded state mandate within the meaning of article XIIIB, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Review granted 08/19/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Civil Procedure, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Statute of limitations, delayed discovery, childhood sexual abuse
#09-30 Quarry v. Doe 1, S171382. (A120048; 170 Cal.App.4th 1574; Alameda County Superior Court; HG07313640.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the delayed discovery provisions of the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1) for claims of childhood sexual abuse against specified non-perpetrators who knew of the abuse and had the ability to prevent it but failed to do so?
Review granted 06/10/2009 - Oral Argument 01/05/2012
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Insurance Law
Keywords: Continuous property damages, stacking of limits
#09-08 State of California v. Continental Ins. Co., S170560. (E041425; 170 Cal.App.4th 160; Riverside County Superior Court; 239784.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) When continuous property damage occurs during the periods of several successive liability policies, is each insurer liable for all damage both during and outside its period up to the amount of the insurer’s policy limits? (2) If so, is the “stacking” of limits—i.e., obtaining the limits of successive policies—permitted?
Review granted 03/18/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Practice Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Hourly workers' rights
#08-157 Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, S166350. (D049331; 165 Cal.App.4th 25; San Diego County Superior Court; GIC834348.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents issues concerning the proper interpretation of California’s statutes and regulations governing an employer’s duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers.
Review granted 10/22/2008 - Oral Argument 11/08/2011
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

[ News ]