Source: https://www.uclpractitioner.com/class_actions_supreme_court/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:21:50+00:00

Document:
Last week, on March 19, 2014, the Supreme Court denied review in Williams v. Superior Court (Allstate Ins. Co.), No. S215887.
In Williams, the trial court decertified the class in reliance on Dukes, and the plaintiff filed a writ petition, which the Court of Appeal summarily denied. Plaintiff then filed a petition for review, and the Supreme Court issued a "grant and transfer" order directing the Court of Appeal to consider the writ petition on the merits. In the ensuing published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed the decertification order. Williams v. Superior Court (Allstate Ins. Co.), 221 Cal.App.4th 1353 (2013).
This is my original blog post on Williams, and this post lists the twelve significant post-Brinker class certification opinions in wage and hour cases.
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014, the Supreme Court denied review in Jones v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. S215633. Jones is one of the twelve post-Brinker class certification decisions in wage and hour matters that I collected here. For more on Jones, see this blog post.
This development came three weeks after the Supreme Court granted itself an extension of time to grant or deny review in this case.
Supplemental briefing ordered in arbitration case: Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.
Last week, on February 19, 2014, the Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., No. S199119.
This is the case in which the Court of Appeal declined to enforce a no-class-action arbitration clause in a consumer contract, notwithstanding Concepcion. Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, 201 Cal.App.4th 74 (2011). The Court of Appeal reasoned that ordinary state-law unconscionability principles were preserved by Concepcion.
The parties are directed to serve and file simultaneous letter briefs on this issue on or before March 12, 2014. If any party or existing amicus curiae chooses to reply to the points raised in the supplemental briefs, the supplemental reply is to be served and filed on or before March 19, 2014.
In addition, any interested person or entity is invited to serve and file an application to file an amicus curiae brief, and that brief itself, by March 12, 2014. Any party may serve and file a reply to such a brief on or before March 19, 2014.
That's a tall order for a brief due in three weeks. It is plausible that the Court has decided that the FAA, as construed in Concepcion, does not preempt generally-applicable unconscionability principles, but that the Court wants to refine those princples for the lower courts on remand. Or maybe the Court wants to clarify its unconscionability jurisprudence before considering whether the application of that jurisprudence in the context of an arbitration clause interferes with the purpose of the FAA. It's tough to read the tea leaves here.
I would expect that the matter will be scheduled for oral argument shortly after the supplemental briefing is completed.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. in the three front-load washer cases, Whirlpool Corp. v. Glaser, No. 13-431; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, No. 13-430; and BSH Home Appliances Corp. v. Cobb, No. 13-138. Each case had been relisted multiple times.
This means that the lower court opinions affirming (or granting) class certification all stand. Those opinions are: Butler v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013) (discussed in this blog post); In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) (discussed here); and Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., 289 F.R.D. 466 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (discussed here).
Slate had an interesting article yesterday on the development [via].
Last week, on February 19, 2014, the Supreme Court granted review in Martinez v. Joe's Crab Shack Holdings, No. S214964. Briefing has been deferred pending resolution of Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. S200923, which is scheduled for argument on March 4, 2014 in San Francisco.
The Court of Appeal's opinion, which is no longer citable, is Martinez v. Joe's Crab Shack Holdings, 221 Cal.App.4th 1148 (2013). My original blog post on that opinion is here.
This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court relisted the Whirlpool and Sears front-load washer cases for the third time. Whirlpool Corp. v. Glaser, No. 13-431 (U.S.); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, No. 13-430 (U.S.).
The cases are scheduled for conference again today (Friday, Jan. 24, 2014). The Court has been announcing its cert. grants on Fridays lately, so if the cases are taken up, we may hear about it today. UPDATE: No cert. grants were announced on Friday, Jan. 24, so check the orders list Monday.
If they are relisted again, I would expect the dockets to be updated to reflect this on Monday.
For more on the cases, see these blog posts.
In related news, the Court is considering a third cert. petition involving class certification issues, BSH Home Appliances Corp. v. Cobb, no. 13-138. This case has been relisted four times, and will be conferenced again today.
(1) Whether after Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), the absence of a showing that injury can be proved on a classwide basis precludes class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
(2) Whether at the class certification stage of litigation a district court must analyze the admissibility of expert testimony under the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
(Hyperlinks added.) The district court granted class certification, Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., 289 F.R.D. 466 (C.D. Cal. 2012), and the Ninth Circuit denied the defendant's petition for permission to appeal under Rule 23(f).
For links to more of the briefs, see the SCOTUSblog case page.
Petitions for writs of certiorari have been filed in the two class actions involving breach of warranty claims against the manufacturers of front-load washing machines. The actions allege that the machines were designed in a manner that fails to prevent internal mold build-up. Whirlpool Corp. v. Glaser, No. 13-431; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, No. 13-430.
The cases share a similar procedural history. In both cases, the lower appellate courts (the Sixth and Seventh Circuits) held that the claims satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 and should be certified for class treatment. Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 702 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2012) (Posner, J.) (discussed here); In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liab. Litig., 678 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2012) (discussed in this blog post). The defendants filed cert. petitions in both cases, and in both, the U.S. Supreme Court entered "GVR" orders ("grant, vacate and remand") directing the lower appellate courts to reconsider their rulings in light of Comcast. (See these blog posts.) In both cases, the lower appellate courts did so, and in both cases, those courts once again held that class certification was proper. Butler v. Sears Roebuck and Co., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. Aug. 22, 2013) (discussed in this blog post); In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liab. Litig., ___ F.3d ___ (6th Cir. Jul. 18, 2013) (discussed here).
The plaintiffs filed their joint opposition to the cert. petitions last Friday, December 6, 2013. This Reuters article discusses that fiing in more detail. The article quotes one of the defense attorneys as saying that he expects the two petitions to be conferenced on January 10, 2014, although neither docket indicates this.
The two cert. petitions, which were filed in October, are available here (Whirlpool) and here (Sears).
Last week, the Supreme Court denied review but granted depublication in Hendleman v. Los Altos Apartments, No. S213598.
In Hendleman, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) affirmed an order denying class certification of claims by a group of tenants against their landlord for breach of the implied warranty of habitability (and other claims). Hendleman v. Los Altos Apartments, L.P., 218 Cal.App.4th 1380 (2013), depublished.
My short original post on Hendleman is here. I have not seen any of the depublication requests, so it's hard to say what caught the Supreme Court's attention. If you have a copy of any of the requests, I would appreciate it if you would forward them.
UPDATE: Many thanks to the blog reader who forwarded the depublication request filed by tenants' advocacy organization BASTA, Inc.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited opinion in Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, ___ Cal.4th ___ (Oct. 17, 2013) (Sonic II). Justice Liu drafted the 70-page majority opinion; Justice Chin, joined by Justice Baxter, dissented.
Although the case is not a class action, the opinion is of keen interest because this is the California Supreme Court's first consideration of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011).
Review was first granted in this case in 2009. In 2011, the Supreme Court issued an opinion (Sonic I), but the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendant's cert. petition, vacated the 2011 opinion, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Concepcion. After further briefing and re-argument, this is the opinion we have been waiting for.
In essence, Sonic II holds that the Federal Arbitration Act, as construed in Concepcion, does not preempt generally applicable state-law rules of contractual unconscionability. That is also what the Ninth Circuit held in Kilgore and Coneff, although neither case is cited in Sonic II.
Sonic II also contains a multi-page discussion of American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S.Ct. 2304 (2013). Slip op. at 42-50.
Although the impact is somewhat softened by the similar holdings of Kilgore and Coneff, as well as earlier opinions of the Court of Appeal on the same issue (most of which have been taken up for review), this is a landmark decision.
Major contratulations to Miles Locker and Rachel Folberg for their monumental win!
Answers to amici briefs filed in Duran v. U.S. Bank N.A.
Briefing is now complete in this case, unless the Supreme Court grants leave for additional briefs to be filed.
On an unrelated subject, last week I noted that the oral argument calendar for September had been announed, and that no cases of interest were scheduled. However, At the Lectern pointed out that on September 4, 2013, the Court will hear argument in Garcia on Admission, no. 202512, which involves whether an undocumented immigrant who graduated from law school and passed the bar exam can be admitted to practice law.
This is an interesting case for sure, although unrelated to what I normally cover on this blog. The briefs in the case are here.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.