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 subject areas and includes a link to the Court of Appeal opinion and to the Supreme Court’s docket. You can search for cases by subject 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.

71 Results

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Reference proceedings, Code of Civil Procedure secton 638
#10-21 Tarrant Bell Property, LLC v. Superior Court, S179378. (A125496, A125714; 179 Cal.App.4th 1283; Alameda County Superior Court; HG08418168.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does the trial court have discretion to deny a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 638 to refer a dispute to a referee in accordance with the pre-dispute agreement of the parties?
Review granted 02/17/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Class actions, death knell doctrine, demurrer
#10-20 Baycol Cases I and II, S178320. (B204943; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; JCCP4217.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed in part the judgment in a civil action and otherwise dismissed the appeal. This case presents the following issue: Did the “death knell doctrine” require plaintiff to immediately appeal the sustaining of a demurrer as to class claims when the ruling resolved both individual and class claims, or did the one final judgment rule apply and require a single appeal from the subsequent entry of final judgment on all claims?
Review granted 02/17/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Business Litigation, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Personal identification information, Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, Civil Code sections 1747 et seq.
#10-15 Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., S178241. (D054355; 178 Cal.App.4th 714; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2008-00086061-CU-BT-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Does a retailer violate the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (Civ. Code, § 1747 et seq.), which prohibits retailers from recording a customer’s “personal identification information” when the customer uses a credit card in a transaction, by recording a customer’s zip code for the purpose of later using it and the customer’s name to obtain the customer’s address through a reverse search database?
Review granted 02/10/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Punitive Damages, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Assignability of punitive damages claim, toxic torts, contamination
#10-14 Nelson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., S179122. (C059615, C060271; 179 Cal.App.4th 633; Sacramento County Superior Court; 02AS00535.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a civil action and granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is the right to recover punitive damages assignable if it arises from an assignable cause of action for property damage, and the property is itself also transferred? (2) If not, may the assignee nonetheless pursue punitive damages if the assignee is merely a continuation of the assignor in a different legal form?
Review granted 02/10/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 02/05/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 02/05/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement
Keywords: Mediation confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, Evidence Code sections 1115-1128
#10-10 Cassel v. Superior Court, S178914. (B215215; 179 Cal.App.4th 152; Los Angeles County Superior Court; LC070478.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Are the private conversations of an attorney and client for the purpose of mediation entitled to confidentiality under Evidence Code sections 1115 through 1128? (2) Is an attorney a “participant” in a mediation such that communications between the attorney and his or her client for purposes of mediation must remain confidential under Evidence Code section 1119, subdivision (c) and 1122, subdivision (a)(2)?
Review granted 02/05/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law, Business Litigation
Keywords: Environmental Law, retrofit control technology, Health and Safety Code section 40440
#10-09 National Paint & Coatings 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

Subject Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: Truck driver's duty of care; proximate cause; substantial factor
#10-05 Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., S178799. (E044098; 179 Cal.App.4th 1; San Bernardino County Superior Court; RCV089849.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does a big-rig truck driver owe a duty of care to freeway motorists not to park for non-emergency reasons in an “Emergency Parking Only” area at the side of a freeway? (2) Was the driver’s act of parking in the “Emergency Parking Only” area not a substantial factor, as a matter of law, in causing plaintiff’s injuries in this case?
Review granted 01/21/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 09/02/2009
See the Crane Co. Petition for Review
See the Warren Pumps Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Constitutional Law
Keywords: Taxation, due process, right to jury trial
#09-82 Franchise Tax Bd. v. Superior Court, S176943. (A122723; 177 Cal.App.4th 36; San Francisco County Superior Court; 06454297.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted in part and denied in part a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does article I, section 16, of the California Constitution accord a taxpayer a constitutional right to a jury trial in an action for a refund of taxes under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19382?
Review granted 12/02/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Business Litigation, Employment and Agency Law, Real Property
Keywords: California Occupational Safety and Health Act
#09-76 Cortez v. Abich, S177075. (B210628; 177 Cal.App.4th 261; Los Angeles County Superior Court; GC038444.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the defendant home owner’s remodeling project, which added a new master bedroom, a new master bath, a new garage in place of a carport, and a new roof, fit within the household domestic service exception to the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (Labor Code section 6300 et seq.)?
Review granted 12/02/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 11/19/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Preemption, labor law
#09-71 California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, S176099. (B206750; 176 Cal.App.4th 51; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC351831.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: Do California food safety laws preempt a local ordinance that requires a grocery store, after a change of ownership, to retain the employees of the former owner for a 90-day transition period? Do federal labor laws do so?
Review granted 11/10/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 11/10/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 11/10/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Private attorney general fees
#09-65 Conservatorship of Roy W., S175855. (A122896; nonpublished opinion; Sonoma County Superior Court; SPR061684.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying attorney fees in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: May an award of attorney fees under the private attorney general statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5) be denied because the prevailing party had a significant non-pecuniary personal interest in the outcome of the litigation?
Review granted 10/22/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement, Healthcare Law
Keywords: Compelling arbitration against patient heirs
#09-64 Ruiz v. Podolsky, S175204. (C040843; 175 Cal.App.4th 227; Orange County Superior Court; 07CC08001.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to compel arbitration. This case includes the following issue: Are the non-signatory adult heirs of a patient bound by a physician-patient arbitration agreement to arbitrate their own wrongful death claims?
Review granted 10/14/2009 - Oral Argument 09/02/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure, Government Tort Liability
Keywords: Taxation, class actions
#09-51 Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, S174507. (B201035; 174 Cal.App.4th 369; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC363959.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order striking class action allegations in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does Government Code section 910 authorize a class claim for refund of a local tax, or must each putative class member file his or her own claim prior to the filing of a class action suit?
Review granted 09/10/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Elder law, consumer law, disability law, unfair competition
#09-52 Clark v. Superior Court, S174229. (B212512; 174 Cal.App.4th 82; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC321681.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Is Civil Code section 3345, which permits an enhanced award of up to three times the amount of a fine, civil penalty, or “any other remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter” in actions brought by or on behalf of senior citizens or disabled persons seeking to “redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition,” applicable in an action brought by senior citizens seeking restitution under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)?
Review granted 09/10/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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?
Review granted 09/10/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Business Litigation, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Corporations, shareholder standing
#09-49 Krinsk v. Chiron Corp., S174803. (D052915; nonpublished opinion; San Diego County Superior Court; GIC878087.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does plaintiff have standing to sue defendant for the diminution in the value of his stock resulting from corporate misconduct that allegedly induced him to retain rather than sell his shares?
Review granted 08/27/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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?
Review granted 08/20/2009 - Oral Argument 09/02/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Insurance Law
Keywords: Coverage, intentional acts of another
#09-41 Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co., S174016. (9th Cir. No. 07-56689; 561 F.3d 1033; Central District of California; CV-07-04374-MMM.) 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: “Where a contract of liability insurance covering multiple insureds contains a severability clause, does an exclusion barring coverage for injuries arising out of the intentional acts of ‘an insured’ bar coverage for claims that one insured negligently failed to prevent the intentional acts of another insured?”
Review granted 08/12/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Court of Appeal order

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Discovery stay, lack of prosecution
#09-35 Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., S172684. (B201952; 172 Cal.App.4th 488; Los Angeles County Superior Court; JCCP 4350.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Does a stay of discovery constitute a stay of the action within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340, subdivision (c), such that the period during which discovery was stayed should be excluded in determining the time within which the action had to be brought to trial?
Review granted 07/23/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Labor law, administrative law, Public Employee Relations Board, Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
#09-34 International Assn. of Firefighters v. Public Employee Relations Bd., S172377. (A114959; 172 Cal.App.4th 265; Contra Costa County Superior Court; N050232.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is the decision by the Public Employee Relations Board not to issue an unfair labor practices complaint under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq.) subject to judicial review? (2) Is a decision to lay off firefighters for fiscal reasons a matter that is subject to collective bargaining under the Act?
Review granted 07/09/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Constitutional Law
Keywords: Election law, secret voting, special elections
#09-31 Greene v. Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, S172199. (A120228; 171 Cal.App.4th 1458; Marin County Superior Court; CV 073767.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the secret voting requirement contained in article II, section 7, of the California Constitution apply to special elections conducted by local agencies pursuant to article XIII, section D, of the California Constitution, enacted by voters as Proposition 218, to assess a fee against property owners benefited by a particular project? (2) If so, was that secrecy requirement violated here, even though the District’s voting procedures were designed to ensure the secrecy of the vote, because the District failed to provide each voter with an individualized assurance that his or her vote would be held in confidence?
Review granted 06/25/2009 - Oral Argument 04/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Business Litigation
Keywords: Business law, misleading advertising, unfair competition, standing
#09-29 Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, S171845. (G040675; 171 Cal.App.4th 645; Orange County Superior Court; 00CC1275.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case includes the following issue: Does a plaintiff’s allegation that he purchased a product in reliance on the product label’s misrepresentation about a characteristic of the product satisfy the requirement for standing under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) that the plaintiff allege a loss of money or property, or is such a plaintiff unable to allege the required loss of money or property because he obtained the benefit of his bargain by receiving the product in exchange for the payment?
Review granted 06/11/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Statute of limitations trigger
#09-27 Pooshs v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., S172023. (9th Cir. No. 08-16338; 561 F.3d 964; Northern District of California; 3:04-cv-01221-PJH.) 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: “When multiple distinct personal injuries allegedly arise from smoking tobacco, does the earliest injury trigger the statute of limitations for all claims, including those based on a later injury?”
Review granted 05/20/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Court of Appeal order

Subject Areas: Business Litigation, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Employees' tips
#09-20 Lu v. Hawaiian Garden Casinos, S171442. (B194209; 170 Cal.App.4th 466, mod. 170 Cal.App.4th 1370a; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC286164.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Does Labor Code section 351, which prohibits employers from taking “any gratuity or part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron,” create a private right of action for employees?
Review granted 04/29/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Business Litigation, Civil Procedure, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Labor law, unpaid wages, statute of limitations, unfair competition
#09-17 Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., S170758. (A122022; 170 Cal.App.4th 388; San Francisco County Superior Court; 468417.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) When a worker files an action to recover penalties for late payment of final wages under Labor Code section 203, but does not concurrently seek to recover any other unpaid wages, is the statute of limitations the one-year statute for penalties under Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (a), or the three-year statute for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 202? (2) Can penalties under Labor Code section 203 be recovered as restitution in an Unfair Competition Law action (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203)?
Review granted 04/22/2009 - Oral Argument 09/02/2009
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Labor law, overtime, out-of-state employees, federal Fair Labor Standards Act
#09-18 Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation, S170577. (9th Cir. No. 06-56649; 557 F.3d 979; Central District of California; CV-05-00392-AHS.) 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 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The questions presented are: “(1) Does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week? (2) Does [Business and Professions Code section] 17200 [et seq.] apply to the overtime work described in question one? (3) Does [section] 17200 [et seq.] apply to overtime work performed outside of California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the [federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 207 et seq.)]?"
Review granted 04/22/2009
See the Court of Appeal order

Subject Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Disability benefits
#09-11 Hertz Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., S169313. (H032438; 169 Cal.App.4th 232.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal annulled a decision of the Board. This case presents the following issue: Is an employer liable for increased permanent total disability benefits when the injured worker’s inability to participate in vocational rehabilitation is due to nonindustrial causes?
Review granted 03/25/2009 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Employment and Agency Law, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Hirer's liability for injuries
#09-07 Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc., S169753. (A120050; 168 Cal.App.4th 1278; Solano County Superior Court; FCS028210.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Do the limitations on a hirer’s liability for injuries to employees of subcontractors that were established in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and subsequent cases extend to claims brought by a self-employed independent contractor against a hirer for injuries sustained while doing contract work for a subcontractor?
Review granted 02/25/2009 - Oral Argument 04/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: California Whistleblower Protection Act, exhaustion of remedies
#09-04 Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University, S168950. (B195213; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC340560.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Must an employee of the California State University exhaust administrative and judicial remedies with respect to a challenged administrative decision in order to bring a claim under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Gov. Code, § 8547 et seq.)? (2) What standard governs the determination whether the employee’s internal complaint has been “satisfactorily addressed” (§ 8547.12, subd. (c)) by the California State University?
Review granted 01/28/2009 - Oral Argument 03/03/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Business Litigation
Keywords: Business law, Internet law, e-mail advertising
#09-03 Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., S169195. (9th Cir. Nos. 07-56171, 07-56292; 551 F.3d 847; Central District of California; CV-07-02406-GAF.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: “Does sending unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters constitute falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information under Business and Professions Code section 17529.5, subdivision (a)(2)?"
Review granted 01/27/2009
See the Court of Appeal order

Subject Areas: Business Litigation, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Antitrust, unfair competition, standing
#08-166 Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., S166435. (A116798; 165 Cal.App.4th 209, mod. 165 Cal.App.4th 1290a; Alameda County Superior Court; RG04172428.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) When plaintiffs pay overcharges on goods or services as a result of the anticompetitive conduct of defendant sellers but recover the overcharges through increased prices at which the goods or services are sold to end users, may defendants assert a “pass-on” defense and argue that plaintiffs were not injured because they did not suffer financial loss as a result of the anticompetitive conduct? (2) Is restitution available under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq.) to plaintiffs who recovered from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants? (3) When plaintiffs recover from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants, have they suffered actual injury and lost money or property for purposes of establishing standing under the Unfair Competition Law, as amended by Proposition 64?
Review granted 11/19/2008 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement, Civil Procedure, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Employment discrimination, FEHA. standard of judicial review
#08-168 Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court, S167169. (B206740; 166 Cal.App.4th 71; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC359605.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) What standard of judicial review applies to an arbitrator’s decision on an employee’s anti-discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) that is arbitrated pursuant to a mandatory employment arbitration agreement? (2) Can such a mandatory arbitration agreement restrict an employee from seeking administrative remedies for violations of the Act? [12/23/09] The court invited the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: Was the arbitrator’s award subject to vacatur under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5), on the grounds that the arbitrator’s failure to properly apply the tolling statute (Code Civ. Proc., §1281.12) constituted “conduct of the arbitrator[] contrary to the provisions of this title” that substantially prejudiced the rights of a party? (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(5).)
Review granted 11/19/2008 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Probate and Trusts
Keywords: No-contest clauses
#08-163 Greenelsh v. Johnson, S166747. (B198228; nonpublished opinion; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court; PR050017.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a probate proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Does a proceeding to determine the competence of an individual to act under the terms of a trust trigger a no contest clause in the trust?
Review granted 11/12/2008 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Family Law
Keywords: Community property, retirement fund
#08-153 In re Marriage of Sonne, S166221. (H030110; 164 Cal.App.4th 1331; Monterey County Superior Court; DR41290.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a marital dissolution action. This case presents the following issue: When a married public employee covered by the California Public Employees Retirement System redeposits contributions withdrawn by a former spouse pursuant to an earlier dissolution so as to regain employer-subsidized retirement service credits, how is the marital community’s interest, if any, in those premarital service credits determined?
Review granted 10/16/2008 - Oral Argument 01/06/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Landowner Liability, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Recreational property immunity
#08-152 Klein v. United States, S165549. (9th Cir. No. 06-55510; 537 F.3d 1027; Central District of California; CV-05-05526-PA.) 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 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: “Does Civil Code section 846, California’s recreational land use statute, immunize a landowner from liability for acts of vehicular negligence committed by the landowner’s employee in the course and scope of his employment that cause personal injury to a recreational user of that land?”
Review granted 10/16/2008 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Court of Appeal order

Subject Areas: Business Litigation, Government Tort Liability
Keywords: Government contracts, breach of warranty
#08-144 Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Great American Ins. Co., S165113. (B189133; 163 Cal.App.4th 944; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC247848.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Must a contractor bringing a contract claim against a public agency based on the theory of breach of implied warranty prove intentional concealment of material facts?
Review granted 09/17/2008
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Business Litigation, Real Property
Keywords: Options, covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel
#08-146 Steiner v. Thexton, S164928. (C054605; 163 Cal.App.4th 359; Sacramento County Superior Court; 04AS04230.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) When a contract contemplates the sale of real property but provides that the buyer may revoke the contract at any time and for any reason before its efforts to obtain county approvals and permits are completed, is the agreement an option agreement that is unenforceable (and may thus be revoked by the seller) because there is no consideration for the option, or does the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing sufficiently eliminate the buyer’s discretion to revoke so that the agreement is, in fact, a purchase agreement that may be enforced against the seller? (2) Did the trial court and the Court of Appeal err in declining to apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel where the buyer purportedly changed its position to its detriment in reliance on the seller’s promise to sell, or would it be inequitable to find an implied promise by the seller not to revoke the agreement?
Review granted 09/17/2008 - Oral Argument 01/27/2010
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Sick leave, kin care
#08-135 McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group, S164692. (A115223; 163 Cal.App.4th 176; Alameda County Superior Court; RG05219163.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does Labor Code section 233, which mandates that employees be allowed to use a portion of “accrued and available sick leave” to care for sick family members, apply to employer plans in which employees do not periodically accrue a certain number of paid sick days but are paid for qualifying absences due to illness? (2) Does Labor Code section 234, which prohibits employers from disciplining employees for using sick leave to care for sick family members, prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee who takes such “kin care” leave if the employer would have the right to discipline the employee for taking time off for the employee’s own illness or injury?
Review granted 08/20/2008 - Oral Argument 12/09/2009 - Decided 02/18/2010
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Arbitrators' disclosure obligations
#08-143 Haworth v. Superior Court, S165906. (B204534; 164 Cal.App.4th 930, mod. 164 Cal.App.4th 1605a; Los Angeles County Superior Court; SC082441.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) What is the scope of a neutral arbitrator’s required disclosures under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.9? (2) What is the proper standard of review of an order vacating an arbitration award based on an arbitrator’s purported failure to disclose grounds for disqualification?
Review granted 08/13/2008 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Government law, attorneys fees
#08-117 County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, S163681. (H031540; 161 Cal.App.4th 1140; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV788657.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: May a public entity retain private counsel to prosecute a public nuisance abatement action under a contingent fee agreement?
Review granted 07/23/2008 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Environmental law, CEQA, statute of limitations
#08-116 Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (H030986; 161 Cal.App.4th 1204; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV065186.) 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: What statute of limitations under Public Resources Code section 21167 applies after a public agency files a notice of determination stating that an entire project will not have a significant impact on the environment?
Review granted 07/23/2008 - Oral Argument 12/08/2009 - Decided 02/11/2010
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Constitutional Law
Keywords: Constitutional law, freedom of speech, public forum
#08-130 International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. City of Los Angeles, S164272. (9th Cir. No. 01-56579; 530 F.3d 768; Central District of California; CV 97-03616-CBM.) 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 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The questions presented, as restated by this court, are: “(1) Is Los Angeles International Airport a public forum under the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution? (2) If so, does the ordinance at issue violate the California Constitution?” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548(f)(5).)
Review granted 07/18/2008 - Oral Argument 01/06/2010
See the Court of Appeal order

Subject Areas: Anti-SLAPP Law
Keywords: Anti-SLAPP exemptions, burden of persuasion
#08-124 Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore, S164174. (H030444; 162 Cal.App.4th 737, mod. 162 Cal.App.4th 1542e; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV0576666.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Which party bears the burden of persuasion with respect to the applicability of the anti-SLAPP exemptions set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c)? (2) Does Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c), exempt from anti-SLAPP protection an advertisement by a lawyer soliciting clients for a contemplated lawsuit? [2/26/2010] The court invited the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: Does the anti-SLAPP exemption under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c), for a “statement or conduct . . . made in the course of delivering the . . . goods or services” of a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services apply to any statement or conduct made in the course of delivering the person’s goods or services or only to a statement or conduct made in the course of delivering the person’s goods or services that “consists of representations of fact about that person’s or a business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services”?
Review granted 06/30/2008 - Oral Argument 04/06/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Labor law, Public Employment Relations Board, Meyers-Milias Brown Act
#08-96 City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, S162647. (H030272; 160 Cal.App.4th 951; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV064707.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of dismissal of a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the Public Employment Relations Board have the exclusive initial jurisdiction to determine whether certain “essential” public employees covered by Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. Code, §§ 3500 3511) have the right to strike, or does that jurisdiction rest with the superior court?
Review granted 06/18/2008 - Oral Argument 04/06/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law, Business Litigation, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Federal agency investigative findings, issue preclusion
#08-99 Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., S162570 (9th Cir. No. 06-15847; 522 F.3d 920; Northern District of California; CV-05-03633-MJJ.) 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. The question presented is: “Should issue-preclusive effect be given to a federal agency’s investigative findings, when the subsequent administrative process provides the complainant the option of a formal adjudicatory hearing to determine the contested issues de novo, as well as subsequent judicial review of that determination, but the complainant elects not to invoke his right to that additional process?”
Review granted 06/18/2008
See the Court of Appeal order

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Res judicata
#08-87 Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., S162029. (B198220; 159 Cal.App.4th 1391; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC353365.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the doctrine of res judicata bar plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic damages in a wrongful death action after her husband died, because she had dismissed with prejudice a claim for loss of consortium while he was alive?
Review granted 05/21/2008 - Oral Argument 03/02/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Products liability, statutes of repose
#08-88 McCann v. Foster Wheeler, S162435. (B189898; 160 Cal.App.4th 689; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC336869.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does Oklahoma’s statute of repose bar a product liability action by a 30-year California resident against a boiler manufacturer arising out of the installation of a boiler in Oklahoma?
Review granted 05/21/2008 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010 - Decided 02/18/2010
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Business Litigation, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Labor law, compensation plan forfeiture
#08-79 Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., S161385. (B193713; 159 Cal.App.4th 10; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC191447.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the forfeiture provision of a voluntary incentive compensation plan, which gives employees the option of using a portion of their earnings to purchase shares in the company’s stock below market price but provides that employees forfeit both the stock and the money used to purchase it if they resign or are terminated for cause within a two-year period, violate Labor Code sections 201 or 202?
Review granted 05/14/2008
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law
Keywords: Environmental law, CEQA, emissions
#08-72 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., S161190. (B193500; 158 Cal.App.4th 1336; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS091276.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: In determining whether a project requires the preparation of an environmental impact report under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), is the maximum amount of emissions allowed a facility under an existing permit part of the baseline against which future environmental impacts should be assessed, even though (a) the facility’s current operations did not reach that level of emissions and (b) the level of emissions allowed by the permit had not been subjected to CEQA review?
Review granted 04/16/2008 - Oral Argument 01/06/2010
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Arbitration, Mediation and Settlement, Insurance Law
Keywords: Fraud in inducement of settlement
#08-62 Village Northridge Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., S161008. (B188718; 157 Cal.App.4th 1416, mod. 158 Cal.App.4th 1241a; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC265328.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: After settling a first party claim by accepting money from and executing a release of the insurer, may an insured sue the insurer for fraud in inducing the settlement and seek to avoid the release without returning the money the insurer paid?
Review granted 03/26/2008
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Environmental law, Clean Water Act
#08-61 Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd., S160211. (H028021; 157 Cal.App.4th 1268; Monterey County Superior Court; M54889.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision on the petitions for writ of certiorari in Entergy Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 07-588, PSEG Fossil LLC. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., No. 07-589, and Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper, Inc., No. 07-598, which present issues concerning the application of section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1326(b)) to the issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
Review granted 03/19/2008
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law
Keywords: Environmental law, statute of limitations, property development approval
#08-32 Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, S159690. (C050885; 157 Cal.App.4th 332; San Joaquin County Superior Court; CV024375.) 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: Was plaintiffs’ challenge to the approval of a Wal-Mart Supercenter project filed within the applicable statute of limitations on the theory that the approval was invalid and thus did not trigger the running of the limitations period?
Review granted 02/13/2008
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure, Employment and Agency Law
Keywords: Employment discrimination, stray remarks, evidentiary objections
#08-24 Reid v. Google, Inc., S158965. (H029602; 155 Cal.App.4th 1342, mod. 156 Cal.App.4th 424g; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV023646.) 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) Should California law recognize the “stray remarks” doctrine, which permits the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment to disregard isolated discriminatory remarks or comments unrelated to the decision-making process as insufficient to establish discrimination? (2) Are evidentiary objections not expressly ruled on at the time of decision on a summary judgment motion preserved for appeal?
Review granted 01/30/2008
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Constitutional Law, Probate and Trusts
Keywords: Conservatorships, Lanterman-Petris-Short Act
#07-456 Conservatorship of John L., S157151. (D048654; 154 Cal.App.4th 1090; San Diego County Superior Court; MH99550.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a conservatorship proceeding. This case presents the following issue: May a proposed conservatee’s attorney, by making an unsworn statement to the court that the person did not wish to be present and did not object to the appointment of a conservator, waive the person’s right to be present at the hearing on a conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, although the report of the “officer providing conservatorship investigation” appointed by the county states that the person did not want a conservator?
Review granted 12/12/2007 - Oral Argument 01/07/2010 - Decided 02/25/2010
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law, Employment and Agency Law, Insurance Law
Keywords: Overtime compensation
#07-443 Harris v. Superior Court, S156555. (B195121, B195370; 154 Cal.App.4th 164; Los Angeles County Superior Court; JCCP No. 4234.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted and denied petitions for peremptory writ of mandate. This case 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 11/28/2007
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Constitutional Law
Keywords: Public contracts, discrimination
#07-383 Coral Construction v. City and County of San Francisco, S152934. (A107803; 149 Cal.App.4th 1218; San Francisco County Superior Court; 421249; 319549.) Petitions for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a summary judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does article I, section 31 of the California Constitution, which prohibits government entities from discrimination or preference on the basis of race, sex, or color in public contracting, improperly disadvantage minority groups and violate equal protection principles by making it more difficult to enact legislation on their behalf? (See Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (1982) 458 U.S. 457; Hunter v. Erickson (1969) 393 U.S. 385.) (2) Is section 31 preempted by the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination? (3) Does an ordinance that provides certain advantages to minority- and female-owned business enterprises with respect to the award of city contracts fall within an exception to section 31 for actions required of a local governmental entity to maintain eligibility for federal funds under the federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000d)? (4) Did the Court of Appeal properly remand the case to the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the ordinance was required in order to maintain the local governmental entity’s eligibility for federal funds?
[3/18/2009] The court requested the Attorney General and the parties to file supplemental briefs directed to the following two questions: (1) Does article I, section 31, of the California Constitution, which prohibits government entities from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public contracting, violate federal equal protection principles by making it more difficult to enact legislation on behalf of minority groups? (See Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (1982) 458 U.S. 457; Hunter v. Erickson (1969) 393 U.S. 385.) (2) If yes, is section 31 narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest?"
Review granted 08/22/2007
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Insurance Law
Keywords: Coverage
#07-363 Ameron Internat. Corp. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, S153852. (A109755; 150 Cal.App.4th 1050; San Francisco County Superior Court; 419929.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment on the pleadings in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does a proceeding before the United States Department of the Interior Board of Contract Appeals constitute a “suit” such as to trigger insurance coverage under a commercial general liability policy?
Review granted 08/15/2007
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Constitutional Law
Keywords: Water law, regulatory fees, sovereign immunity
#07-133 California Farm Bureau Federation v. California State Water Resources Control Bd., S150518. (C050289; 146 Cal.App.4th 1126; Sacramento County Superior Court; 03CS01776, 04CS00473.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case includes the following issues: (1) Does Water Code section 1525, which was amended by the Legislature by majority vote in 2003 to impose annual fees on the persons and entities holding permits and licenses issued by the State Water Resources Control Board, impose an invalid tax or a lawful regulatory fee? (2) If section 1525 is valid, may the Water Resources Control Board permissibly collect a fee levied on an entity which has sovereign immunity from a person or entity who has a contract with the immune sovereign? (3) If the statutory scheme is valid, but the regulations implementing it are invalid, did the Court of Appeal err in limiting refunds to only those persons and entities filing petitions for reconsideration before the Water Resources Control Board?
Review granted 04/11/2007
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

[ News ]