Source: http://www.gmsr.com/news_watch.cfm
Timestamp: 2014-08-29 12:05:04
Document Index: 798627944

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17200', '§ 14501', '§ 2050', '§ 21000', '§ 21000', '§ 2', '§ 685', '§ 15600', '§ 1245', '§ 2', '§ 6501', '§ 46000', '§ 110810', '§ 54', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 3250', '§ 12900', '§ 3339', '§ 7285', '§ 24000', '§ 1171', '§ 16650', '§ 6600', '§ 6250', '§ 1417', '§ 5000', '§ 4500', '§ 17200', '§ 14501', '§ 21000', '§ 2', '§ 12900', '§ 2', '§ 15657', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 340', '§ 335', '§ 2', '§ 12945', '§ 21000', '§ 2', '§ 21000', '§ 2', '§ 21000', '§ 2', '§ 21000', '§ 2', '§ 16720']

GMSR: California Supreme Court Watch - A list of all civil cases now pending before the California Supreme Court
This is a list of all civil cases now pending before the California Supreme Court, with descriptions from the Court's official news releases. Each entry includes links to the Court of Appeal opinion and the Supreme Court's docket. You can search for specific words, including case names, by using your browser's "find" command. Cases will continue to appear for a month after decision, with a copy of the Supreme Court opinion.
#14-97 Haver v. BNSF Railway Co., S219919. (B246527; 226 Cal.App.4th 1104, mod. 226 Cal.App.4th 1376b; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC435551.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. Haver and Kesner present the following issue: If an employer’s business involves either the use or the manufacture of asbestos-containing products, does the employer owe a duty of care to members of an employee’s household who could be affected by asbestos brought home on the employee’s clothing?
Review granted 08/20/2014
#14-98 Kesner v. Superior Court, S219534. (A136378, A136416; 226 Cal.App.4th 251; Alameda County Superior Court; RG11578906.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. Haver and Kesner present the following issue: If an employer’s business involves either the use or the manufacture of asbestos-containing products, does the employer owe a duty of care to members of an employee’s household who could be affected by asbestos brought home on the employee’s clothing?
#14-92 City of Montebello v. Vasquez, S219052. (B245959; 226 Cal.App.4th 1084; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC488767.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a special motion to strike in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did votes by city officials to approve a contract constitute conduct protected under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 despite the allegation that they had a financial interest in the contract? Review granted 08/13/2014
#14-94 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Bowen, S220289. Original proceedings. The court issued an order to show cause directing the parties to show cause why the relief prayed for in the petition for writ of mandate should not be granted. This case involves the validity of proposed Proposition 49 for the November 2014 General Election — specifically, whether the Legislature had the authority to place a non-binding measure on the ballot seeking the views of the electorate. Review granted 08/13/2014
#14-90 In re Transient Occupancy Tax Cases, S218400. (B243800; 225 Cal.App.4th 56; Los Angeles County Superior Court; JCCP 4472.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in action for writ of administrative mandate. This case includes the following issue: When a customer books a hotel room through an online travel company, should the occupancy tax levied on the rent charged by the hotel be calculated based on the retail rate paid by the customer to obtain the right to use the room or on the wholesale amount that the hotel receives from the online travel company after that company has deducted its markup and fees? Review granted 07/30/2014
See the City of San Diego Petition for Review
GMSR represents City of San Diego and City and County of San Francisco
#14-91 Grupp v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., S218754. (B245297; 225 Cal.App.4th 510; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC406388.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in People ex re. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., S194388 (#11-97), which presents the following issue: Is an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) that is based on a trucking company’s alleged violation of state labor and insurance laws “related to the price, route, or service” of the company and, therefore, preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. § 14501)?
Review granted/briefing deferred 07/30/2014
#14-82 deSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, S219236. (H038184; 225 Cal.App.4th 1427; Monterey County Superior Court; M85528.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order awarding costs in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: When plaintiff dismissed her action in exchange for the defendant’s payment of a monetary settlement, was she the prevailing party for purposes of an award of costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4), because she was “the party with a net monetary recovery,” or was defendant the prevailing party because it was “a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered”?"
Review granted 07/23/2014
#14-83 DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, S218597. (E055732, E056294; 225 Cal.App.4th 1115; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1109512.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Can parties who are jointly and severally liable on an obligation be sued in separate actions? (2) Does the opinion of the Court of Appeal in this case conflict with the opinion of this court in Williams v. Reed (1957) 48 Cal.2d 57?
#14-76 Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc., S218497. (B238867; 225 Cal.App.4th 237; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC449056.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the delegation — by a health care service plan (HMO) to an independent physicians association (IPA), under Health and Safety Code section 1371.4, subdivision (e) — of the HMO’s responsibility to reimburse emergency medical service providers for emergency care provided to the HMO’s enrollees relieve the HMO of the ultimate obligation to pay for emergency medical care provided to its enrollees by non-contracting emergency medical service providers, if the IPA becomes insolvent and is unable to pay? (2) Does an HMO have a duty to emergency medical service providers to protect them from financial harm resulting from the insolvency of an IPA which is otherwise financially responsible for the emergency medical care provided to its enrollees?
Review granted 07/16/2014
#14-80 Horiike v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., S218734. (B246606; 225 Cal.App.4th 427; Los Angeles County Superior Court; SC110477.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: When the buyer and the seller in a residential real estate transaction are each independently represented by a different salesperson from the same brokerage firm, does Civil Code section 2079.13, subdivision (b), make each salesperson the fiduciary to both the buyer and the seller with the duty to provide undivided loyalty, confidentiality and counseling to both?
GMSR represents Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.
#14-69 Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, S217763. (B245131; 224 Cal.App.4th 1105; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS131347.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.) supersede other California statutes that prohibit the taking of “fully protected” species, and allow such a taking if it is incidental to a mitigation plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)? (2) Does the California Environmental Quality Act restrict judicial review to the claims presented to an agency before the close of the public comment period on a draft environmental impact report? (3) May an agency deviate from the Act’s existing conditions baseline and instead determine the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions by reference to a hypothetical higher “business as usual” baseline? Review granted 07/09/2014
#14-71 Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc., S218176. (B248038; 224 Cal.App.4th 1239; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC449958.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Are negligence and strict liability claims by an employee of a processing company against a supplier of raw materials for injuries allegedly suffered in the course of processing those materials barred by the component parts doctrine?
Review granted 07/09/2014
See the Alcoa Inc. Petition for Review
See the P-G Industries, Inc. and The Pryor-Giggey Company Petition for Review
See the Schorr Metals, Inc. Petition for Review
#14-72 Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn., S218240. (C070836; 224 Cal.App.4th 1542; Sacramento County Superior Court; 34201180000902CUWMGDS.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, S201116 (#12-58), which presents the following issue: Did the City of Berkeley properly conclude that a proposed project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) under the categorical exemptions set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15303, subdivision (a), and 15332, and that the “Significant Effects Exception” set forth in section 15300.2, subdivision (c), of the regulations did not operate to remove the project from the scope of those categorical exemptions? Review granted/briefing deferred 07/09/2014
#14-73 Gillespie v. Svale Del Grande, Inc., S218704. (H039428; nonpublished opinion; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV233338.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Review granted/briefing deferred 07/09/2014
#14-74 Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc., S218699. (G047429; 225 Cal.App.4th 410; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2008-00112660.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed orders in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Conservatorship of McQueen, S209376 (#13-43), which presents the following issue: Is a trial court award of statutorily-mandated fees and costs incurred on appeal subject to the Enforcement of Judgments Statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040 et seq.) if the statutory authority underlying the award is the Elder Abuse Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.)? Review granted/briefing deferred 07/09/2014
#14-62 City of San Jose v. Superior Court, S218066. (H039498; 225 Cal.App.4th 75, mod. 225 Cal.App.4th 568c; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV150427.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Are written communications pertaining to city business, including email and text messages, which (a) are sent or received by public officials and employees on their private electronic devices using their private accounts, (b) are not stored on city servers, and (c) are not directly accessible by the city, “public records” within the meaning of the California Public Records Act? Review granted 06/25/2014
#14-65 Property Reserve v. Superior Court, S217738. (C067758, C067765, C068469; 224 Cal.App.4th 828; San Joaquin County Superior Court; 4594.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an order granting a petition for precondemnation entry. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Do the geological testing activities proposed by the Department of Water Resources constitute a taking? (2) Do the environmental testing activities set forth in the February 22, 2011, entry order constitute a taking? (3) If so, do the precondemnation entry statutes (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1245.010-1245.060) provide a constitutionally valid eminent domain proceeding for the taking?
Review granted 06/25/2014
#14-67 Cheroti v. Harvey & Madding, S218724. (A135553; nonpublished opinion; Alameda County Superior Court; HG10500986.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Review granted/briefing deferred 06/25/2014
#14-68 Ybarra v. Apartment Investment & Management Co., S217994. (B245901; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC480377.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights? Review granted/briefing deferred 06/25/2014
#14-51 People v. Miami National Enterprises, S216878. (B242644; 223 Cal.App.4th 21; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC373536.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is a payday loan company owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe entitled to tribal sovereign immunity, and thus exempt from state regulation, if the day-to-day management of the business is handled by a third party management company that is not affiliated with the tribe and pays the tribe a small percentage of the gross revenues? Review granted 05/21/2014
#14-43 Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., S216305. (B239602; 222 Cal.App.4th 642; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC436557.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Does the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.) preempt state consumer lawsuits alleging that a food product was falsely labeled “100% Organic” when it contained ingredients that were not certified organic under the California Organic Products Act of 2003 (Food & Agr. Code, § 46000 et seq.; Health & Saf. Code, § 110810 et seq.)? Review granted 04/30/2014
#14-40 F.P. v. Monier, S216566. (C062329; 222 Cal.App.4th 1087; Sacramento County Superior Court; 06AS00671.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Is a trial court’s error in failing to issue a statement of decision upon a timely request reversible per se? Review granted 04/16/2014
#14-41 Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., S215990. (222 Cal.App.4th 25; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC361768.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: 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)? Review granted 04/16/2014
#14-39 Larkin v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., S216986. (C065891; 223 Cal.App.4th 538.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a decision of the Board. This case presents the following issue: Do the benefits provided under Labor Code section 4458.2 extend both to volunteer peace officers and to regularly sworn, salaried officers? Review granted 04/09/2014
#14-34 Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc., S216351. (9th Cir. No. 12-15807; 742 F.3d 871; Central District of California; 3:11–cv–03458–LB.) 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: “Does the California Disabled Persons Act’s reference to “places of public accommodation” [Civ. Code, § 54.1, subd. (a)(1)] include web sites, which are non-physical places?” Review granted 03/26/2014
See the Ninth Circuit request for decision under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548
#14-33 South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., S215637. (D063945; nonpublished opinion.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal annulled a decision of the Board. This case presents the following issue: Does a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits have a separate and distinct causation standard and burden of proof requiring that an industrial injury constitute a “material factor” contributing to the employee’s death, or does the standard require only that the industrial injury be a “contributing cause”? Review granted 03/19/2014
#14-29 Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc./Henderson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, S215614. (9th Cir. Nos. 12-56130, 13-56095; 739 F.3d 1192, Southern District of California, 3:09-cv-02051–MMA-KSC; Central District of California, 2:11-cv-03428-PSG-PLA.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in consolidated appeals pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The questions presented are: For purposes of IWC Wage Order 4-2001 § 14(A) and IWC Wage Order 7-2001 § 14(A), “(1) Does the phrase ‘nature of the work’ refer to an individual task or duty that an employee performs during the course of his or her workday, or should courts construe ‘nature of the work’ holistically and evaluate the entire range of an employee’s duties? (a) If the courts should construe ‘nature of the work’ holistically, should the courts consider the entire range of an employee’s duties if more than half of an employee’s time is spent performing tasks that reasonably allow the use of a seat? (2) When determining whether the nature of the work ‘reasonably permits’ the use of a seat, should courts consider any or all of the following: the employer’s business judgment as to whether the employee should stand, the physical layout of the workplace, or the physical characteristics of the employee? (3) If an employer has not provided any seat, does a plaintiff need to prove what would constitute ‘suitable seats’ to show the employer has violated Section 14(A)?”
Review granted 03/12/2014
#14-25 Poole v. Orange County Fire Authority, S215300. (G047691, G047850; 221 Cal.App.4th 155; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2011-00463651.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Did a daily log about firefighters, which was maintained by a supervisor and used by the supervisor to prepare annual performance evaluations, qualify under the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3250 et seq.) as a personnel file and/or as a file used for personnel purposes?
Review granted 02/26/2014
#14-26 Horne v. District Council 16 International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, S215870. (A135470; 221 Cal.App.4th 1132; Alameda County Superior Court; RG10534651.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., S196568 (#11-130). which presents the following issues: Did the trial court err in dismissing plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) on grounds of after-acquired evidence and unclean hands, based on plaintiff’s use of false documentation to obtain employment in the first instance? Did Senate Bill No. 1818 (2001-2002 Reg. Session) preclude application of those doctrines in this case? (See Civ. Code, § 3339; Gov. Code, § 7285; Health & Saf. Code, § 24000; Lab. Code, § 1171.5.) Review granted/briefing deferred 02/26/2014
#14-23 Parker v. State of California, S215265. (F062490; 221 Cal.App.4th 340; Fresno County Superior Court ; 10CECG02116.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a permanent injunction in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Are the Penal Code sections that regulate “ammunition principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles” (Pen. Code, § 16650, subd. (a)) unconstitutional on their face for failure to afford adequate notice of the regulated conduct and/or failure to provide sufficient guidelines to prevent arbitrary enforcement? Review granted 02/19/2014
#14-19 In re Marriage of Davis, S215050. (A136858; 220 Cal.App.4th 1109; Alameda County Superior Court; RF08428441.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order in a marital dissolution proceeding. The court limited review to the following issue: For the purpose of establishing the date of separation under Family Code section 771, may a couple be “living separate and apart” when they reside in the same residence? Review granted 02/11/2014
#14-20 State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, S215132. (B248603; 220 Cal.App.4th 1503; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC487936.) 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 issues: (1) Did the state comply with the requirement of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) that it conduct a “full evaluation” of an inmate potentially qualifying as a “sexually violent predator” prior to the inmate’s release? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that, as a matter of law, plaintiff could not establish that defendants’ actions were a proximate cause of her injuries? Review granted 02/11/2014
#14-14 Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates, S214855. (B237153; 220 Cal.App.4th 740, mod. 221 Cal.App.4th 166d; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS130730.) 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: Are the requirements in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued to real parties in interest by the regional water quality control board state mandates subject to reimbursement under article XIII B, section 6, subdivision (b), of the state Constitution?
Review granted 01/29/2014
#14-15 State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, S214679. (C072325; 219 Cal.App.4th 966; Sacramento County Superior Court; 34201280001044.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for preemptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: In the context of a request under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250) for citations issued by the Department of Public Health to state facilities housing the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled, can the public accessibility provisions for citations issued under the Long-Term Care Act (Health & Saf. Code, § 1417 et seq.) be reconciled with the confidentiality provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) and the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 4500 et seq.), and, if so, how?
#14-10 State ex rel. Dept. of California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, S214221. (G047922; 220 Cal.App.4th 612; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2008-00116111.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Can the California Highway Patrol be considered the special employer of a tow truck driver participating in the Freeway Service Program?
Review granted 01/21/2014
#14-02 Rashidi v. Moser, S214430. (B237476; 219 Cal.App.4th 1170; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC392082.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: If a jury awards the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action non-economic damages against a healthcare provider defendant, does Civil Code section 3333.2 entitle that defendant to a setoff based on the amount of a pretrial settlement entered into by another healthcare provider that is attributable to non-economic losses or does the statutory rule that liability for non-economic damages is several only (not joint and several) bar such a setoff?
Review granted/issues limited 01/15/2014
#14-01 Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist., S214061. (A135892; nonpublished opinion; San Mateo County Superior Court; CIV508656.) 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: When a lead agency performs a subsequent environmental review and prepares a subsequent environmental impact report, a subsequent negative declaration, or an addendum, is the agency’s decision reviewed under a substantial evidence standard of review (Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385), or is the agency’s decision subject to a threshold determination whether the modification of the project constitutes a “new project altogether,” as a matter of law (Save our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1288)?
Review granted 01/15/2014
#13-108 Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., S213873. (B234271; 219 Cal.App.4th 188; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC405280.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Is an award of attorney fees under Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813 properly included as compensatory damages for purposes of calculating the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages where the fees are awarded by the jury, but excluded from compensatory damages when they are awarded by the trial court after the jury has rendered its verdict?
01/15/14: The court ordered the issues to be briefed and argued limited to the following issue: Is an award of attorney fees under Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813 properly included as compensatory damages where the fees are awarded by the jury, but excluded from compensatory damages when they are awarded by the trial court after the jury has rendered its verdict? Review granted 12/11/2013
#13-109 Rodriguez v. RWA Trucking Company, Inc., S214150. (B241727; 219 Cal.App.4th 692; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC182763.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in People ex re. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., S194388 (#11-97), which presents the following issue: Is an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) that is based on a trucking company’s alleged violation of state labor and insurance laws “related to the price, route, or service” of the company and, therefore, preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. § 14501)? Review granted/briefing deferred 12/11/2013
#13-101 Barry v. State Bar of California, S214058. (B242054; 218 Cal.App.4th 1435; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC452239.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order awarding attorney fees in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: If the trial court grants a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 on the ground that the plaintiff has no probability of prevailing on the merits because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, does the court have the authority to award the prevailing party the attorney fees mandated by section 425.16, subdivision (c)?
Review granted 11/26/2013
#13-103 California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., S213478. (A135335, A136212; 218 Cal.App.4th 1171; Alameda County Superior Court; RG10548693.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the following issue: Under what circumstances, if any, does the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project? Review granted 11/26/2013
#13-105 Gonzales v. Metro Nissan of Redlands, S214121. (E056160; nonpublished opinion; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVDS1105056.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Review granted/briefing deferred 11/26/2013
#13-99 Coker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., S213137. (D061720; 218 Cal.App.4th 1; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2011-00087958-CU-MC-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Do the anti-deficiency protections in Code of Civil Procedure section 580b apply to a borrower who engages in a “short sale” of real property when the lender approved the sale and reconveyed its deed of trust to facilitate the sale on the condition that the borrower remain liable for any outstanding balance on the loan following the sale? (2) Does a borrower’s request that the creditor release its security interest in real property to facilitate a short sale result in a waiver of the protection of the “security first” rule set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 726?
Review granted 11/20/2013
#13-97 B.H. v. County of San Bernardino, S213066. (E054516; nonpublished opinion; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVDS913403.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does Penal Code section 11166, subdivision (k), create a mandatory duty requiring a law enforcement agency to cross-report to the relevant social services agency whenever it receives a report of known or suspected child abuse? (2) If so, when is that duty triggered? (3) Does Penal Code section 11166, subdivision (a), apply to law enforcement agencies that receive initial reports of child abuse? (4) If so, what standard should be applied to determine whether a follow-up report is required?
Review granted 11/13/2013
#13-98 City of Perris v. Stamper, S213468. (E053395; 218 Cal.App.4th 1104; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC524291.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) In this eminent domain case, was the constitutionality of the dedication requirement — that the city claimed it would have required in order to grant the property owner permission to put the property to a higher use — a question that had to be resolved by the jury pursuant to article I, section 19, of the California Constitution? (2) Was the dedication requirement a “project effect” that the eminent domain law required to be ignored in determining just compensation?
#13-95 Coffey v. Shiomoto, S213545. (G047562; 218 Cal.App.4th 1288; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2012-00549559.) 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) Can circumstantial evidence other than the results of chemical tests be used to prove that a driver’s blood-alcohol content at the time of driving was the same as, or greater than, the results of a blood-alcohol test taken approximately an hour after driving? (2) Is the decision of the Court of Appeal consistent with the requirements of Evidence Code section 604 for proof of an initially presumed fact after the presumption has been rebutted? Review granted 10/30/2013
#13-96 Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court, S212800. (G047013, G047219; 217 Cal.App.4th 1005; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2011-00494437.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Is the proposed development project of low density housing at issue in this case consistent with the city’s general plan? Review granted 10/30/2013
#13-93 Hampton v. County of San Diego, S213132. (D061509; 218 Cal.App.4th 286; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2010-00101299-CU-PA-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does a public entity establish the second element of design immunity under Government Code section 830.6—discretionary approval of design plans—as a matter of law by presenting evidence that its design plans were approved by an employee with the discretion to do so, even if the plaintiff presents evidence that the design at issue violated the public entity’s own standards? Review granted 10/23/2013
#13-94 Curtis v. County of Los Angeles, S213275. (B238870; 218 Cal.App.4th 366; Los Angeles County Superior Court; MC021242, MC021243, MC022270.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Cordova v. City of Los Angeles, S208130 (#13-30), which presents the following issue: May a government entity be held liable if a dangerous condition of public property existed and caused the injuries plaintiffs suffered in an accident, but did not cause the third party conduct that led to the accident? Review granted/briefing deferred 10/23/2013
#13-88 Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., S212704. (B240519; 217 Cal.App.4th 851; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC391669.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an order granting a preliminary injunction in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Are the guards that defendants provide for construction site security entitled to compensation for all nighttime “on call” hours, or may defendants deduct sleep time depending on the structure of the guards' work shifts? Review granted 10/16/2013
See the Construction Protective Service Petition for Review
See the Mendiola Petition for Review
#13-89 Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., S213100. (E055755; 218 Cal.App.4th 73; San Bernardino County Superior Court; CIVRS801732.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order awarding costs in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is a prevailing defendant in an action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) required to show that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless in order to recover ordinary litigation costs? Review granted 10/16/2013
#13-83 Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C., S211645. (A133750; 216 Cal.App.4th 1444; San Francisco County Superior Court; CGC-06-449220.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: After an insured has secured a judgment requiring an insurer to provide independent counsel to the insured (see San Diego Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358), can the insurer seek reimbursement of defense fees and costs it considers unreasonable and unnecessary by pursuing a reimbursement action against independent counsel or can the insurer seek reimbursement only from its insured? Review granted 09/18/2013
#13-77 California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, S212072. (H038563; 216 Cal.App.4th 1373; Santa Clara County Superior Court; 1-10-CV167289.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: What standard of judicial review applies to a facial constitutional challenge to inclusionary housing ordinances that require set asides or in-lieu fees as a condition of approving a development permit? (See San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643, 670.) Review granted 09/11/2013
#13-79 Brown v. Superior Court, S211962. (H037271; 216 Cal.App.4th 1302; Santa Clara County Superior Court; 110-CV178451.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights? Review granted/briefing deferred 09/11/2013
#13-80 Leos v. Darden Restaurant, Inc., S212511. (B24163; 217 Cal.App.4th 473; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC473673.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc., S208345 (#13-31), which presents the following issue: Is an employment arbitration agreement unconscionable for lack of mutuality if it contains a clause providing that either party may seek provisional injunctive relief in the courts and the employer is more likely to seek such relief? Review granted/briefing deferred 09/11/2013
#13-75 Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp, S211596. (B236015; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC398978.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an award of attorney fees and otherwise affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: Is a prevailing homeowner entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1354 in an action by a homeowners association to enforce its governing documents as those of a common interest development when the homeowner prevailed because it was later determined that the subdivision was not such a development and its governing documents had not been properly reenacted?
Review granted 08/28/2013
#13-74 Vargas v. SAI Monrovia B, Inc., S212033. (B237257; 216 Cal.App.4th 1269; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC452879.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a motion to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Review granted/briefing deferred 08/21/2013
#13-72 Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc., S211793. (B237712; 216 Cal.App.4th 875; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC455808.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does “neglect” within the meaning of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657) include a health care provider’s failure to refer an elder patient to a specialist if the care took place on an outpatient basis, or must an action for neglect under the Act allege that the defendant health care provider had a custodial relationship with the elder patient?
Review granted 08/14/2013
#13-59 Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC, S210804. (B239928; 215 Cal.App.4th 277; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC458347.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Do the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b), which govern motions to renew previously denied motions, apply to renewed motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), for relief from default judgment? Review granted 07/17/2013
#13-54 Monterey Peninsula Water Dist. v. Public Utilities Com., S208838. Original proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility?
Review granted 06/26/2013
#13-56 Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc., S210439. (A134829; 214 Cal.App.4th 1172, mod. 215 Cal.App.4th 764a; Solano County Superior Court; FCS038384.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Review granted/briefing deferred 06/26/2013
#13-48 Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc., S209927. (B233189; 214 Cal.App.4th 595, mod. 214 Cal.App.4th 1386d; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC436063.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Should a defendant that supplied raw asbestos to a manufacturer of products be found liable to the plaintiffs on a failure to warn theory? (2) Was the trial court’s decision to treat defendant’s pre-trial motions for nonsuit and for a directed verdict as a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict procedurally improper, and if so, was it sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal?
Review granted 06/12/2013
#13-50 Compton v. Superior Court, S210261. (B236669; 214 Cal.App.4th 873; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC448343.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Review granted/briefing deferred 06/12/2013
#13-45 Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, S209836. (B235409; 213 Cal.App.4th 1386; Los Angeles County Superior Court; VC058225.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order of dismissal of a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the one-year statute of limitations for claims under the Medical Injury Compensation Act (Code Civil Proc., § 340.5) or the two-year statute of limitations for ordinary negligence (Code Civil Proc., § 335.1) govern an action for premises liability against a hospital based on negligent maintenance of hospital equipment? (2) Did the injury in this case arise out of “professional negligence,” as that term is used in section 340.5, or ordinary negligence?
Review granted 05/22/2013
#13-42 Natalini v. Import Motors, Inc., S209324. (A133236; 213 Cal.App.4th 587; San Mateo County Superior Court; CIV500678.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Review granted/briefing deferred 05/01/2013
#13-36 California Charter Schools Assn. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., S208611. (B242601; 212 Cal.App.4th 689; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC438336.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order in a civil action. Did the Court of Appeal adopt an incorrect methodology for determining what facilities a school district is required to afford to a charter school in accordance with Education Code section 47614? Review granted 04/17/2013
#13-34 Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, LLC, S208716. (B238265; 212 Cal.App.4th 895; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC441761.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
Review granted 04/10/2013
#13-33 Gregory v. Cott, S209125. (B237645; 213 Cal.App.4th 41; Los Angeles County Superior Court; SC109507.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Did the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bar the complaint for damages brought by an in-home caregiver against an Alzheimer’s patient and her husband for injuries the caregiver received when the patient lunged at her?
Review granted 04/10/2013 - Oral Argument 05/07/2014 - Decided 08/04/2014 See the Supreme Court opinion
#13-30 Cordova v. City of Los Angeles, S208130. (B236195; 212 Cal.App.4th 243; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC442048, BC443948, BC444004.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: May a government entity be held liable if a dangerous condition of public property existed and caused the injuries plaintiffs suffered in an accident, but did not cause the third party conduct that led to the accident?
Review granted 03/20/2013
#13-31 Baltazer v. Forever 21, Inc., S208345. (B237173; 212 Cal.App.4th 221; Los Angeles County Superior Court; VC059254.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Wisdom v. Accentcare, Inc., S200128 (#12-35), which includes the following issue: Is an arbitration clause in an employment application that provides “I agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application” unenforceable as substantively unconscionable for lack of mutuality, or does the language create a mutual agreement to arbitrate all such disputes? (See Roman v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462.)
08/28/2013: The court directed briefing in this case, in which briefing was previously deferred pending decision in Wisdom v. Accentcare, Inc., S200128 (#12-35), review dismissed July 24, 2013. This case presents the following issue: Is an employment arbitration agreement unconscionable for lack of mutuality if it contains a clause providing that either party may seek provisional injunctive relief in the courts and the employer is more likely to seek such relief? Review granted 03/20/2013
#13-26 Central Coast Forest Assn. v. Fish & Game Com., S208181. (C060569; 211 Cal.App.4th 1433; Sacramento County Superior Court; 07CS00851.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Under the California Endangered Species Act, Fish and Game Code section 2050 et seq., may the Fish and Game Commission consider a petition to delist a species on the ground that the original listing was in error? (2) If so, does the petition at issue here contain sufficient information to warrant the Commission's further consideration?
Review granted 02/27/2013
#13-20 Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., S207536. (B234711; 210 Cal.App.4th 1516, mod. 211 Cal.App.4th 701b; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC408319.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is an employer’s honest belief that an employee was violating company policy or abusing medical leave a complete defense to the employee’s claim that the employer violated the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (Gov. Code §§ 12945.1, 12945.2)? (2) Was the decision below to vacate the arbitration award in the employer’s favor consistent with the limited judicial review of arbitration awards?
Review granted 02/13/2013
#13-21 Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, S207173. (F063849; 210 Cal.App.4th 1006; Tuolumne County Superior Court; CV56309.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Must a city comply with the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) before adopting an ordinance enacting a voter-sponsored initiative pursuant to Elections Code section 9214, subdivision (a)? (2) Is the adoption of an ordinance enacting a voter-sponsored initiative under Elections Code section 9214, subdivision (a), a “ministerial project” exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(1)?
Review granted 02/13/2013 - Oral Argument 05/28/2014 - Decided 08/07/2014 See the Supreme Court opinion
See the City of Sonora Petition for Review
See the James Grinnell Petition for Review
See the Walmart, Inc. Petition for Review
#13-22 Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., S207760. (B232583; 211 Cal.App.4th 314; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC369201.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?
Review granted/briefing deferred 02/13/2013
#13-23 Monarrez v. Automobile Club of Southern California, S207726. (B233512; 211 Cal.App.4th 177, mod. 211 Cal.App.4th 701a; Los Angeles County Superior Court; VC055461.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, S204543 (#12-103), which concerns whether the defendant franchisor was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that it was vicariously liable for tortious conduct by a supervising employee of a franchisee. Review granted/briefing deferred 02/13/2013
#13-08 Riverside County Sheriff’s Dept. v. Stiglitz, S206350. (E052729, E052807; 209 Cal.App.4th 883; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC10004998). Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a petition for writ of administrative mandate. The court limited review to the following issue: Does the hearing officer in an administrative appeal of the dismissal of a correctional officer employed by a county sheriff’s department have the authority to grant a motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531?
Review granted 01/16/2013 - Oral Argument 09/03/2014 See the Petition for Review
#13-05 The Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd., S206587. (A130803; 209 Cal.App.4th 938; San Francisco County Superior Court; CGC-10-495911.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Were multistate taxpayers required to apportion business income according to the formula set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code section 25128 as amended in 1993 or could they elect to apportion income according to the formula set forth in former Revenue and Taxation Code section 38006 pursuant to the adoption of the Multistate Tax Compact in 1974?
Review granted 01/16/2013
#12-121 Goodridge v. KDF Automotive Group, Inc., S206153. (D060269; 209 Cal.App.4th 325; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2010-00105355-CU-CO-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740], preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable? Review granted/briefing deferred 12/19/2012
#12-116 Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, S205889. (G045579; 208 Cal.App.4th 1506; Orange County Superior Court; 06CC00016.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Are the limitations on assignment of third party liability insurance policy benefits recognized in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934 inconsistent with the provisions of Insurance Code section 520? Review granted 12/12/2012
#12-119 Reyes v. Liberman Broadcsting, Inc., S205907. (B235211; 208 Cal.App.4th 1537; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC438669.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civilaction. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights? Review granted/briefing deferred 12/12/2012
#12-110 Caron v. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, S205263. (G044550; 208 Cal.App.4th 7; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2010-00369466.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights? Review granted/briefing deferred 10/24/2012
GMSR represents Mission Imports, Defendant and Appellant
#12-108 City of Hayward v. Trustees of California State University, S203939. (A131412, A131413, A132423, A132424; 207 Cal.App.4th 446; Alameda County Superior Court; RG09480852, RG09481095.) 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. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in City of San Diego v. Trustees of California State University, S199557 (#12-40), which includesthe following issue: Does a state agency that may have an obligation to make “fair-share” payments for the mitigation of off-site impacts of a proposed project satisfy its duty to mitigate under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) by stating that it has sought funding from the Legislature to pay for such mitigation and that, if the requested funds are not appropriated, it may proceed with the project on the ground that mitigation is infeasible? Review granted 10/17/2012
#12-103 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, S204543. (B235099; 207 Cal.App.4th 385; Ventura County Superior Court; 56-2009-00347668-CU-OE-SIM.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the question discussed in the Court of Appeal’s opinion, namely, whether the defendant franchisor is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that it is vicariously liable for tortious conduct by a supervising employee of a franchisee. Review granted 10/10/2012 - Oral Argument 06/04/2014 - Decided 08/28/2014 See the Supreme Court opinion
#12-67 Mayers v. Volt Management Corp., S200709. (G045036; 203 Cal.App.4th 1194; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2010-00430432.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Review granted 06/13/2012
#12-58 Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, S201116. (A131254; 203 Cal.App.4th 656; Alameda County Superior Court; RG10517314.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Did the City of Berkeley properly conclude that a proposed project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) under the categorical exemptions set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15303, subdivision (a), and 15332, and that the “Significant Effects Exception” set forth in section 15300.2, subdivision (c), of the regulations did not operate to remove the project from the scope of those categorical exemptions?
Review granted 05/23/2012
#12-49 Buzenes v. Nuvell Financial Services, S200376. (B221870; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC407366.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119 (#12-33), which includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Review granted/briefing deferred 05/09/2012
#12-40 City of San Diego v. Trustees of the California State University, S199557. (D057446; 201 Cal.App.4th 1134; San Diego County Superior Court; GIC855643, GIC855701, 37-2007-00083692-CU-WM-CTL, 37-2007-00083773-CU-MC-CTL, 37-2007-00083768-CU-TT-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Does a state agency that may have an obligation to make “fair-share” payments for the mitigation of off-site impacts of a proposed project satisfy its duty to mitigate under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) by stating that it has sought funding from the Legislature to pay for such mitigation and that, if the requested funds are not appropriated, it may proceed with the project on the ground that mitigation is infeasible?
Review granted 04/18/2012
#12-33 Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, S199119. (B228027; 201 Cal.App.4th 74; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC433634.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. This case includes the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rules invalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract as procedurally and substantively unconscionable?
Supplemental Briefing Ordered - 02/19/2014: The court invited the parties and interested persons and entities to file supplemental briefing on the following questions. In formulating the standard for determining whether a contract or contract term is substantively unconscionable, this court has used a variety of terms, including “unreasonably favorable” to one party (Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109, 1145); “so one-sided as to shock the conscience” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 246); “unfairly one-sided” (Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064, 1071–1072; “overly harsh” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114; and “unduly oppressive” (Perdue v. Crocker National Bank (1985) 38 Cal.3d 913, 925). (1) Should the court use only one of these formulations in describing the test for substantive unconscionability and, if so, which one? (2) Are there any terms the court should not use? (3) Is there a formulation not included among those above that the court should use? (4) What differences, if any, exist among these formulations either facially or as applied? Review granted 03/21/2012
#12-31 Estate of Duke, S199435. (B227954; 201 Cal.App.4th 599; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BP108971.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a probate proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Should the “four corners” rule (see Estate of Barnes (1965) 63 Cal.2d 580) be reconsidered in order to permit drafting errors in a will to be reformed consistent with clear and convincing extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s intent? Review granted 03/21/2012
GMSR represents Jewish National Fund
#12-15 In re Cipro Cases I & II, S198616. (D056361; 200 Cal.App.4th 442; San Diego County Superior Court; JCCP4154, JCCP4220.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: May a suit under the Cartwright Antitrust Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720 et seq.) be brought to challenge “reverse exclusionary payments” made by pharmaceutical manufacturers to settle patent litigation with generic drug producers and prolong the life of the patents in question?
Supplemental Briefing Ordered - 06/26/2013: The stay of briefing entered September 12, 2012, is vacated. The parties are directed to submit simultaneous supplemental letter briefs discussing the relevance of FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (June 17, 2013) 570 U.S. __ to the issues in this case. The letter briefs must be served and filed by July 17, 2013; the parties may serve and file reply letter briefs by July 31, 2013. Amicus curiae briefs may be served and filed by August 30, 2013, and replies to amicus curiae briefs served and filed by September 30, 2013. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f).)
07/10/2013: The court ordered proceedings stayed pending class action settlement approval proceedings in San Diego County Superior Court and subject to further order by the court.
Supplemental Briefing Ordered - 12/11/2013: The stay of briefing entered July 10, 2013, is vacated. The parties are directed to submit simultaneous supplemental letter briefs discussing the relevance of FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013) 570 U.S. __ [133 S.Ct. 2223] to the issues in this case. Review granted 02/15/2012
Our firm has won some significant victories in the nation's highest court. Read More...
Check our Announcements area often for the latest news about our firm, our cases and the appellate community. Read More...
We've been busy helping our clients be successful in the appellate courts. See what we've done for our clients lately. Read More...
GMSR's Cases
Tort Litigation Read More...