The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today. Notable results include:
- A Petition for Review was granted in Pellegrino v. Robert Half International, Inc. (February 25, 2010) (G039985), (reversed trial court order decertifying class after applying Tobacco II) - discussed on this blog here. The matter will be HELD pending resolution of the lead case, Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual), Case No. S156555. The issue for review is the applicability of the administrative overtime exemption to claims adjusters. The second opinion in Pellegrino does not appear to be under review, based upon the Supreme Court docket.
- A Petition for Review and depublication was denied in Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Oakley, Inc., 180 Cal. App. 4th 1542 (Jan. 13, 2010) (held: if plaintiffs claim that their lawsuit was the catalyst to action by the defendant, the pre-lawsuit notification requirement applies not only when fees are sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, pursuant to Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 553 (2004), but also to fee requests under the common-law substantial benefit doctrine). The decision is consistent with Abouab v. City and County of San Francisco, 141 Cal. App. 4th 643 (2006).
- A Petition for Review was denied in Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 471 (January 27, 2010) (held: community of interest adequately alleged in putative class action such that defendant's demurrer should have been denied) - discussed on this blog here.