Source: https://www.uclpractitioner.com/appellate_practice/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:19:07+00:00

Document:
Class actions and the "five-year" rule: Rel v. Pacific Bell Mobile Servs.
In Rel v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services, ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Mar. 29, 2019), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Five) reviewed the dismissal of a putative class action under the "five-year" rule (Code Civ. Proc. §583.310). The panel considered, among other issues, the interplay between the dismissal statutes and interim "death knell" appeals from orders denying class certification.
"Supreme Court swipes left on Tinder petition for review"
As reported on Wednesday by my fellow bloggers over at At the Lectern, the Supreme Court denied review this week in my Unruh Act and UCL case for age discrimination against Tinder. Candelore v. Tinder, No. S247527. See these two blog posts for more about the case.
I'm particularly pleased by this result. This one was a challenge, given the published opinion and what, at first glance, might look like a split in authority between intermediate appellate decisions. I worked hard to craft a series of compelling reasons for denying review, and I'm very happy that the Supreme Court seems to have found them persuasive.
The denial of review sends a strong signal that the Court of Appeal correctly decided the case and properly construed the Supreme Court’s Unruh Act precedents. The Court of Appeal's published opinion is Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., 19 Cal.App.5th 1138 (2018).
Ninth Circuit addresses appealability of class certification orders: Bates v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co.
There are only two procedural avenues for appealing an order striking class allegations made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) asking the district court to certify an order for interlocutory review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); or (2) filing a petition for permission to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). See Plata v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1101, 1107–08 (9th Cir. 2003); Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir. 1975). .... Plaintiffs did not use either of these procedural avenues, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to hear their challenge to the order striking their class allegations.
If pending H.R. 985 passes, this would all change. Among other attacks on the class action process, the bill would make all orders either denying or granting class certification immediately appealable as of right. That would automatically add at least a two-year delay in the middle of almost every class action. (Something similar was proposed in California some time ago, but never made it out of committee.) Please contact your representative and tell him or her to vote no on H.R. 985. For those on the defense side, consider the fact that curtailing class actions, which is the goal of this bill, would be bad for your law practice. The fewer class actions, the fewer cases for clients to hire you to defend.
For over a century, the rule in California has been that when the Supreme Court grants review, the Court of Appeal's opinion, if previously published, is automatically depublished and rendered uncitable, unless the Supreme Court otherwise directs. See Former Rule of Court 8.1105, subd. (e)(1).
Effective July 1, 2016, this has changed. The Rules of Court were amended to state that a grant of review by the Supreme Court no longer automatically depublishes a published Court of Appeal opinion. Instead, a published Court of Appeal opinion "may be cited for potentially persuasive value." Rule of Court 8.1105, subd. (e)(1). However, while review is pending, the opinion "has no binding or precedential effect," and "[a]ny citation to the Court of Appeal opinion must also note the grant of review and any subsequent action by the Supreme Court." Id.
After the Supreme Court renders its decision on review, the Court of Appeal opinion then becomes both “citable and has binding or precedential effect, except to the extent it is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court or is disapproved by that court.” Id., subd. (e)(2) (emphasis added).
Since the July 1 effective date, the Supreme Court has granted review in six cases in which the Court of Appeal's opinion was published. Five of those are criminal or habeas matters; the fifth is an anti-SLAPP case, Crossroads Investors, L.P. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 246 Cal.App.4th 529 (2016), review granted, No. S234737 (Cal. Jul. 27, 2016).
Westlaw is on top of things. The Crossroads opinion is shown with a yellow flag and a citation to the amended Rule, whereas the Court of Appeal's opinion in Laffitte, in which review was granted before the effective date of the amended Rule, is shown with a red flag.
This has become a common and rather lamentable practice: Instead of getting leave to file an oversized brief before the deadline, lawyers wait for the last minute to file chubby briefs and dare us to bounce them. Of course, it’s hard to decide cases without a brief from one of the parties, and denying the motion usually knocks the briefing and argument schedule out of kilter. Denying the motion is thus more trouble than allowing the brief to be filed and putting up with the additional unnecessary pages. Sly lawyers take advantage of this institutional inertia to flout our page limits with impunity. This encourages disdain for our rules and penalizes lawyers, like petitioner’s counsel, who make the effort to comply.
Slip op. at 3-4 (emphasis added).
He went on to say that he would not read past the first 14,000 words of the overlength brief, and invited the state to file, within 7 days, "a substitute brief" that met the word-count limit. Id. at 4.
The lesson is obvious: comply with the word-count limit, or provide strong justifications for requesting extra space. I do feel for the AG's lawyers, however. Judge Kozinski must have had good reasons for suggesting that they had engaged in "sly" behavior that showed "disdain" for the rules, but it is always disappointing when judges become so frustrated that they use that kind of language about members of the bar. "Sly" essentially means dishonest, which is a heavy accusation to hear from any judge, let alone a former Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit.
This case is neither a UCL case nor a class action, but I mention it because the concurring and dissenting opinion has a very interesting discussion of the "abuse of discretion" standard of review. Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Dec. 12, 2013) (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) (Rubin, J., concurring).
As appellate judges we are taught to consider each case in the context of the applicable standard of review which, for the most part, is one or more of substantial evidence, abuse of discretion, and de novo review. Many appellate decisions and some commentators have criticized the abuse of discretion standard as the most misused and most misunderstood of these. Our colleague in Division 6, Justice Gilbert, has said that the “abuse of discretion standard is itself much abused.” (Ziesmer v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 360, 363.) It is indeed.
Conc. opn. of Rubin, J., slip op. at 1.
Was this action properly dismissed for the failure to bring it to trial within five years or should the period during which the action was stayed for purposes of mediation have been excluded under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340, subdivision (b) or (c)?
The Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action as to all but one defendant. Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., 222 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2013).
Daily Journal: "Depublication of employment appellate rulings stirs curiosity"
Kimberly A. Kralowec of the Kralowec Law Group filed a depublication request for each of the three cases in question, though she was not otherwise involved in them. She asserts the decisions misstated the Supreme Court's analysis in Brinker by relying on an older analysis of the word "provide" that refers to the dictionary and interprets the phrasing to mean the employer meets the obligation by simply offering breaks.
"It's a lot more than just offering or authorizing a break," Kralowec said. "The employer has to take affirmative steps to relieve workers of all duty, and refrain from doing anything that would interfere with the employees' ability to take a break."
[F]ormer Justice Carlos R. Moreno, who retired from the state Supreme Court in 2011, said that depublished cases typically have something in them that's inconsistent with the high court's own precedent.
"If a case is really off the mark, then the court will elect that remedy," he said.
Mine were not the only depublication requests. Michael Singer filed requests for CELA in Hernandez and Lamps Plus; Joseph Antonelli filed a request for his clients in Tien; and Eve Cervantez filed a request for a group of workers in Lamps Plus.
All of the requests made essentially the same argument -- that the Court of Appeal was badly misinterpreting the Brinker opinion. My requests also pointed out that in so doing, the Court of Appeal failed to adhere to the rule of stare decisis, which requires allegiance not only to the high court's holdings, but also its reasoning. All three opinions were "really off the mark" because they did not adhere to either the ultimate holding or the reasoning of Brinker.
In a dramatic move, the state Supreme Court depublished two of those rulings — Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, 195 Cal.App.4th 389, and Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, 208 Cal.App.4th 1487. In both cases, the Second District had denied class certification.
Kimberly Kralowec of The Kralowec Law Group said in both rulings the Second District had "misinterpreted the Brinker decision, in particular what employers have to do to comply with their meal period obligations." Depublishing, she said, "was a very strong signal that the court disagreed with the analysis" in those two cases.
Needless to say, I'm very pleased to have done my part to achieve depublication in these cases, and I think that depublishing the opinions was the correct outcome, given that the Supreme Court is apparently not ready to revisit any of the issues addressed in Brinker by granting review in these cases.
I am equally pleased by the press attention these developments have garnered. That the Supreme Court would depublish three opinions like this is pretty remarkable, whatever the issue. Many lawyers have sent expressions of thanks and contratulations which I have been so pleased and proud to hear. Congratulations are also due to Michael, Joe and Eve.
This unique full-day program is returning after a four-year hiatus. Justices from every Division of the First District Appellate Court of Appeal will address critical areas of practice, from nuts and bolts to recent developments such as the advent of e-filing. This program is a must for anyone practicing before the First District. The program features Associate Justice Carol Corrigan, California Supreme Court as the luncheon speaker.
In appeals raising important legal issues, an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief can make a difference. When done well, an amicus brief can alert a reviewing court to the broader implications of a case or bring a different perspective to the issues. This CLE program will provide a rare opportunity to hear from two respected jurists about effective amicus briefs.
The first event unfortunately conflicts with the CAOC Convention, but I'm planning to attend the second. For those attending the CAOC Convention, I will hope to see you on Saturday afternoon, when I will be presenting a panel segment on Brinker.
As reported in the Bailey Class Action Daily, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Two) has handed down a new opinion addressing appealability of orders denying class certification. Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Sept. 20, 2012).
The relevant discussion appears at pp. 29-31 of the slip opinion.
New opinion affirms order strking class allegations: Ortega v. Topa Ins. Co.
In Ortega v. Topa Ins. Co., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (May 25, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) affirmed an order striking class allegations from the complaint.
On a related note, a recent unpublished opinion from the Fifth Appellate District, Barnes v. Bakersfield Dodge, Inc., No. F063370 (Cal. App. May 22, 2012), held that the "death knell" doctrine applies to an order granting a motion to compel arbitration in a putative class case if the arbitration clause bans class proceedings. At least one publication request has been filed there. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that the defendant had waived its right to seek to compel arbitration.
UPDATE: The publication requests in Barnes were denied.
Two new class certification decisions: Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. and Safaie v. Jacuzzi Whirlpool Bath, Inc.
The Court of Appeal has handed down two class certification opinions in the past eight days.
In Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Feb. 16, 2011), the Court of Apppeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification of meal period, rest break, and waiting time penalty claims. Because the opinion addresses the core meal period compliance question in Brinker, the case is likely to be taken up as a "grant and hold."
In Safaie v. Jacuzzi Whirlpool Bath, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 25, 2011; pub. ord. Feb. 22, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) affirmed the trial court's order denying a motion to "recertify" the class on the ground that an earlier order granting decertification had been affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeal applied "the settled state law rule that a final order decertifying a class is binding and cannot be later challenged in the trial court by a motion for renewal or reconsideration." Slip op. at 18.
On November 17th from 12-1:30, the Section will co-sponsor (along with the Labor &Employment Section) “How Reid v. Google Will Affect You.” The program will feature former section Chair Don Willenburg of Gordon & Rees LLP speaking about the evidentiary and appellate review aspects of this recent, major California Supreme Court case and Marvin Dunson III of Valdez Dunson & Doyle LLP speaking about the case’s employment aspects. For registration, click here.
On December 6th, from 12:00-1:15, the Section will sponsor “Effective Oral Argument on Appeal,” which will offer great tips and address some recent debate about the utility of oral argument. The program will feature former section member Justice Kathleen Banke, Associate Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division One; former section Chair Raymond Cardozo of Reed Smith LLP; current Vice Chair Ethan Schulman of Crowell & Moring LLP; and myself as speakers. For registration, click here.
On December 9th, from 12:00-1:45, the Section will sponsor “The George Court: A Thematic Retrospective.” We are honored to have as speakers for this timely program Professor Gerald Uelmen from Santa Clara University School of Law; Honorable Joseph Grodin, former Justice of the California Supreme Court and Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Law from UC Hastings College of the Law; and Professor Shaun Martin of USD School of Law and host of the lawblog California Appellate Report. The program should be very interesting and will highlight some of the identifiable themes and trends of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice George and address some specific topics. For registration, click here.
Appellate specialization credit will be offered for all three programs and you can sign up for them on line at www.sfbar.org/calendars.
Today's San Francisco Chronicle has a review of the new book by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View .
I have Justice Breyer's earlier book, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution , and it is quite good.
Nate Scott, a Senior Attorney for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, is the author of Southern California Appellate News, providing "news and resources for the Southern California appellate lawyer, featuring the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal."
He has two recent posts ("Replacing the Chief: The Elite Eight" and "Supreme Speculation") with thoughtful discussion of possible nominees to the California Supreme Court in place of Chief Justice George, who is retiring.
UPDATE: Yesterday's Recorder also has an article, "They Might Be Chief" (subscription), by Mike McKee and Cheryl Miller. Justices Corrigan, Chin and Baxter are all mentioned in the Recorder article as possible candidates for Chief Justice.
Tonight, the Appellate Section of the Barristers Club of the Bar Association of San Francisco will present "Views from the Bench: Best Practices in Appellate Advocacy," featuring Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Carlos T. Bea and William A. Fletcher and California Court of Appeal Justice Laurence Kay (Ret.).
This moderated panel discussion will focus on best practices in written and oral appellate advocacy. The topics will include drafting persuasive appellate briefs, presenting an effective oral argument, and the 'dos and don'ts' of brief writing and oral advocacy. The panel discussion will be followed by a reception with light refreshments.
The program runs from 6:00-7:00 p.m. (registration begins at 5:30) at the BASF Conference Center, 301 Battery Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco.
Since the April 27, 2007 order sustaining Bayer’s demurrer to Shaw’s class claims was immediately appealable, Shaw’s December 20, 2007 notice of appeal was untimely as to these claims. We therefore affirm the judgment dismissing the class claims.
Slip op. at 8-9. I haven't seen the briefs, but it appears that review was granted to address the split in authority with the Los Altos case.
Baycol has been added to my list of pending Supreme Court cases of interest to attorneys practicing in this area.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §583
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1292
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.