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.

77 Results

Subject 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 06/26/2010
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Employment and Agency Law, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Independent contractors; non-delegable duties
#10-72 Lewis v. Pepper Construction Co. Pacific, S181596. (C060212; nonpublished opinion; Sacramento County Superior Court; 05AS04118.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Seabright Ins. Co. v. U.S. Airways, Inc., S182508 (#10-69), which includes the following issue: When an employee of an independent contractor sustains an on-the-job injury, can the hirer of the contractor be liable on the theory that the hirer’s breach of a non-delegable duty contained in a statute or regulation constituted an “affirmative contribution” to the injury within the meaning of Hooker v. Dept. of Transp. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 212, footnote 3?
Review granted 06/09/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Government law; executive authority
#10-70 St. John’s Well Child & Family Center v. Schwarzenegger, S181760. (S125750; 182 Cal.App.4th 590.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does the Governor’s constitutional line item veto power “to reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation” (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 10, subd. (e)) apply to provisions in a mid-year emergency bill that reduce appropriation amounts of a previously enacted budget bill?
Review granted 06/09/2010
See the Interveners' Petition for Review
See the Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Employment and Agency Law, Tort Litigation
Keywords: Independent contractors; non-delegable duties
#10-69 SeaBright Ins. Co. v. U.S. Airways, Inc., S182508. (A123726; 183 Cal.App.4th 219; San Francisco County Superior Court; 458707.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: When an employee of an independent contractor sustains an on-the-job injury, can the hirer of the contractor be liable on the theory that the hirer’s breach of a non-delegable duty contained in a statute or regulation constituted an “affirmative contribution” to the injury within the meaning of Hooker v. Dept. of Transp. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 212, footnote 3?
Review granted 06/09/2010
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Keywords: Government law; executive authority
#10-68 Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, S183411. (C061009, C061011, 6061020; Sacramento County Superior Court; 34-2008-800000126, 34-2009-800000134, 34-2009-800000135.) Consolidated appeals transferred on the court’s own motion from the Court of Appeal. In addition to the issues already briefed in these appeals, which address the question of the Governor’s general authority to institute a mandatory furlough of state employees by executive order, the court directed the parties to brief the following questions: (1) What effect, if any, does Government Code section 19996.22 — which provides in part that “[a]ny employee . . . who has been required, by the appointing power, . . . to involuntarily reduce his or her worktime contrary to the intent of this article . . . may file a grievance with the department” — have on the validity of the Governor’s executive order instituting a mandatory furlough on state employees? (2) What effect, if any, does the provision of the revised 2008 Budget Act which reduced the appropriation for employee compensation for the 2008–09 fiscal year in an amount comparable to the savings sought to be achieved by the Governor’s furlough order (Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess. 2009–2010, ch. 2, § 36 (SBX3 2, § 36), passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor on Feb. 20, 2009) have on (a) the validity of the Governor’s executive order, and/or (b) the remedy, if any, to which the petitioning labor organizations may be entitled in these actions?
Review granted 06/09/2010

Subject Areas: Professional Malfeasance
Keywords: Attorney duty of loyalty
#10-67 Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, S181781. (B217141; 182 Cal.App.4th 688; Los Angeles County Superior Court; SC101564.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a special motion to strike in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Does an attorney breach the duty of loyalty owed a former client when he or she actively takes a position against the former client on the same issue for which the lawyer previously had been retained, even though the lawyer is acting on his or her own behalf and there is no subsequent representation or employment?
Review granted 06/09/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Law of the case
#10-66 Episcopal Church Cases, S182407. (G042454; nonpublished opinion; Orange County Superior Court; JCCP 4392.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. The court limited review to the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal properly direct the entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the national Episcopal Church under Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467?
Review granted 06/09/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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

Keywords: Government law; executive authority
#10-61 California Attorneys, Etc. v. Schwarzenegger, S182581. (A125292; 182 Cal.App.4th 1424; San Francisco County Superior Court; 509205.) Review on the court’s own motion after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court directed the parties to address the following issue: Does the Governor have the authority to furlough the state employees at issue in this case by executive order? The court also stated that review in this case may be undertaken in conjunction with possible consideration of similar issues in cases that are pending in the Court of Appeal.
Review granted 05/19/2010
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 05/12/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Tort Litigation
Keywords: Vicarious liability; negligent hiring
#10-56 Diaz v. Carcamo, S181627. (B211127; 182 Cal.App.4th 339, mod. 182 Cal.App.4th 1674a; Ventura County Superior Court; 241085.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: When a plaintiff alleges negligent driving against an employee and negligent hiring against the employer, does the employer’s admission of vicarious liability for the employee’s negligence eliminate the negligent hiring cause of action and preclude evidence of the employee’s poor driving record?
Review granted 05/12/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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 04/30/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject 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

Subject Areas: Administrative Law, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Environmental law, standing, requirment of environmental impact report, CEQA
#10-48 Save The Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, S180720. (B215788; 181 Cal.App.4th 521; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS116362.) 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) Did an association of plastic bag manufacturers have standing to challenge a local ordinance banning the use of plastic bags? (2) Did the trial court err in ruling the ordinance invalid for the failure to prepare an environmental impact report?
Review granted 04/22/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure, Healthcare Law
Keywords: Preemption, Federal Credit Reporting Act, Confidentiality of Medical Information Act
#10-42 Brown v. Mortensen, S180862. (B199793; 181 Cal.App.4th 789; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC289546.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the Federal Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) preempt causes of action for improper disclosure of medical information to credit reporting agencies under California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.)?
Review granted 04/14/2010
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
#10-39 Ohton v. Board of Trustees of California State University, S180389. (D053738; 180 Cal.App.4th 1402; San Diego County Superior Court; GIC825574.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University, S168950 (#09-04), which 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 03/30/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law
Keywords: Workers' compensation, cost-of-living adjustments, Labor Code section 4659
#10-35 Duncan v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., S179194. (H034040; 179 Cal.App.4th 1009.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal annulled a decision of the Board. This case presents the following issue: When do cost-of-living adjustments under Labor Code section 4659, subdivision (c), for payments for total permanent disability and life pensions begin?
Review granted 03/24/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure, Healthcare Law
Keywords: Collateral source rule
#10-25 Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., S179115. (D053620; 179 Cal.App.4th 686; San Diego County Superior Court; GIN053925.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed a post-verdict order in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is the “negotiated rate differential” — the difference between the full billed rate for medical care and the actual amount paid as negotiated between a medical provider and an insurer — a collateral source benefit under the collateral source rule, which allows plaintiff to collect that amount as economic damages, or is the plaintiff limited in economic damages to the amount the medical provider accepts as payment? (2) Did the trial court err in this case when it permitted plaintiff to present the full billed amount of medical charges to the jury but then reduced the jury’s award of damages by the negotiated rate differential?
Review granted 03/10/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Insurance Law
Keywords: Exclusions, insurer's rights as between coinsureds
#10-24 Century National Ins. Co. v. Garcia, S179252. (B209616; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC379522.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: May an insurer enforce an exclusion clause in a fire insurance policy that denies coverage to innocent insureds for damages from a fire intentionally caused by a coinsured, or does such a clause impermissibly reduce coverage that is statutorily mandated?
Review granted 03/10/2010
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

Subject Areas: Administrative Law, Civil Procedure
Keywords: Legislative subpoena, appealable orders, Government Code section 37104
In re Enforcement Against Various Entities.
#10-26 In re Enforcement Against Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective of City of Dana Point City Council Subpoena, S180365. (G042878; nonpublished order; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2009-00298200.)
#10-27 In re Enforcement Against The Point Alternative Care, Inc., of City of Dana Point City Council Subpoena, S180468. (G042893; nonpublished order; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2009-00298187.)
#10-28 In re Enforcement Against Holistic Health of City of Dana Point City Council Subpoena, S180560. (G042883; nonpublished order; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2009-00298196.)
#10-29 In re Enforcement Against Beach Cities Collective of City of Dana Point City Council Subpoena, S180749. (G042880; nonpublished order; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2009-00298208.)
#10-30 In re Enforcement Against Dana Point Beach Collective of City of Dana Point City Council Subpoena, S180803. (G042889; nonpublished order; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2009-00298206.)

Petitions for review after the Court of Appeal deemed notice of appeal to be a petition for extraordinary writ. The court limited review in Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective, The Point Alternative Care, Holistic Health, Beach Cities Collective, and Dana Point Beach Collective to the following issue: Is an order compelling compliance with a legislative subpoena issued under Government Code section 37104 appealable as a final judgment?
Review granted 03/10/2010
See the Beach Cities Collective Petition for Review
See the Dana Point Beach Collective Petition for Review
See the Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective Petition for Review
See the Holistic Health, Inc. Petition for Review
See the The Point Alternative Care, Inc. Petition for Review

Subject Areas: Civil Procedure
Keywords: Reference proceedings, Code of Civil Procedure section 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 Petition for Review
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 Petition for Review
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 05/25/2010
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
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 06/02/2010
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
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
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
See the Petition for Review
See the Court of Appeal opinion

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
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
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
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
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
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 05/25/2010
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
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?

[5/21/2010] Review in the case was dismissed.
Review granted 03/25/2009
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
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: 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 05/03/2010
See the Supreme Court opinion
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
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 01/05/2010
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 05/06/2010 - Decided 07/26/2010
See the Supreme Court opinion
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 - Oral Argument 05/05/2010 - Decided 07/12/2010
See the Supreme Court opinion
See the Petition for Review
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 05/06/2010
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 05/05/2010 - Decided 07/26/2010
See the Supreme Court opinion
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 05/05/2010 - Decided 07/01/2010
See the Supreme Court opinion
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 - Oral Argument 05/25/2010
See the Court of Appeal order

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: 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?

[3/30/2010] The court requested the parties to file supplemental letter briefs addressing the following issue: Should the court overrule Garcia v. California Truck Co. (1920) 183 Cal. 767, 773, and Taylor v. Hopper (1929) 207 Cal. 102, 105?
Review granted 03/26/2008 - Oral Argument 06/01/2010
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 Petition for Review
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? [04/09/2010] Order filed: The parties are directed to serve and file briefs discussing the following questions: The waiver provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivisions (b)(5) and (d) require the evidentiary objections to be made at the hearing. Would written objections filed before the summary judgment hearing be sufficient to preserve evidentiary objections? If not, when and how must the evidentiary objections be made to be deemed made at the hearing? The parties are directed to serve and file their briefs within 20 days of the date of this order, and may serve and file responsive briefs within 15 days thereafter.
Review granted 01/30/2008 - Oral Argument 05/26/2010
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 - Oral Argument 05/04/2010
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 - Oral Argument 05/26/2010
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 ]