Deposition length in California is regulated by statute, but Courts retain power to modify the limits

Class action practitioners often handle a smaller portfolio of cases than, say, a firm specializing in personal injury matters.  As a result, that practice group is sometimes slower to experience procedural changes first hand.  This is particularly true when the changes do not generally apply to class actions.  One such example of this is the change last year regarding the length of depositions in California  Superior Court.  Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.290 limits the length of depositions to seven hours, absent specific exceptions: "Except as provided in subdivision (b), or by any court order, including a case management order, a deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness' counsel of record, shall be limited to seven hours of total testimony."  One exception applies to any case deemed complex under Rule 3.400.  That exception has an extra twist to it:

(3) To any case designated as complex by the court pursuant to Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, unless a licensed physician attests in a declaration served on the parties that the deponent suffers from an illness or condition that raises substantial medical doubt of survival of the deponent beyond six months, in which case the deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness' counsel of record, shall be limited to two days of no more than seven hours of total testimony each day, or 14 hours of total testimony.

Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.290(b)(3).

In Certainteed Corporation v. Superior Court (January 8, 2014), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) was called upon to determine whether the discretion provided to the trial court generally in section 2025.290 applied to the 14-hour limit on depositions in complex actions involving a deponent suffering from a potentially terminal illness or condition.

Examining the statute, the Court found the language of (b)(3) to be ambiguous as to whether the trial court could modify the 14-hour limit imposed on depositions of deponents with the aforementioned health limitations.  Nevertheless, the Court found that a clear enough indication existed in the statute to conclude that the trial court had discretion to alter the limits in all circumstances:

The second sentence of section 2025.290, subdivision (a) includes language requiring the court to allow additional time to examine a deponent “beyond any limits imposed by this section” if additional time is “needed to fairly examine the deponent . . . . ”  (Italics added.) We hold that this exception applies not only to the seven-hour limit, but also expressly applies to “any limits imposed by this section,” which necessarily includes the 14-hour limit set out in subdivision (b)(3). The Legislature’s use of the words “this section,” rather than “this subdivision,” and “any limits,” rather than “the limit,” establishes that the exception applies not only to the seven-hour limit in subdivision (a), but also to the 14-hour limit in subdivision (b)(3).

Slip op., at 11.

So, a trial court can alter the presumptive limits on deposition length in section 2025.290, but, since you class action is probably complex, it doesn't really matter unless the deponent is not likely to live more than six months.

For appellate procedure wonks, the Court granted the petitions for a writ and issues an accelerated Palma notice, given the plaintiff's health and his right to a trial preference.

It's always commonality that gets you in the end (Hendelman v. Los Altos)

When it comes to certification, you can fix almost any problem other than commonality (community of interest).  Inadequate representative?  Get a new one.  Problem with inexperienced class counsel?  Co-counsel.  Numerosity is not really amenable to correction, but most of the time firms just pass on the tiny classes.  But commonality, there's where the rubber meets the road.  In Hendelman v. Los Altos Apartments, L.P. (Jul. 22, 2013; pub. ord. Aug. 20, 2013), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) affirmed a trial court order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certificaiton for lack of ascertainability, community of interest, and superiority.  The bulk of the Court of Appeal opinion addresses the commonality-related failings.

The Court first held that the warranty of habitability claim was not suitable for resolution through common proof:

[T]he mere “existence of a prohibited (uninhabitable) condition or other noncompliance with applicable code standards does not necessarily constitute a breach of the warranty of habitability.” (Friedman et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2012) § 3:39, p. 3-13, citing Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 637-638.) “Whether the defect or code noncompliance is ‘substantial’ (and thus a cognizable breach) or ‘de minimis’ (no actionable breach) is determined on a case-by-case basis.” (Friedman et al., supra, § 3:40, p. 3-13.) “In considering the materiality of an alleged breach, both the seriousness of the claimed defect and the length of time for which it persists are relevant factors. Minor housing code violations standing alone which do not affect habitability must be considered de minimis and will not entitle the tenant to reduction in rent; and likewise, the violation must be relevant and affect the . . . common areas which [the tenant] uses.” (Hinson v. Delis (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 62, 70, disapproved on other grounds by Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46, 55, fn. 7.) Stated otherwise, whether a particular defect or violation of a housing code constitutes a breach of the implied warranty of habitability depends on the severity and duration of the defect or violation. Breach is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. (Friedman et al., supra, §§ 3:46 to 3:47, pp. 3-14 to 3-15.)

Slip op., at 11.  The trial court concluded that even the code violations impacting all tenants did so differently and to different degrees, and the Court of Appeal, giving deference to the trial court, agreed.  One question raised by this decision is whether variation in entitlement to damage tainted the analysis as to whether liability could be shown through common proof, especially where strict liability is imposed on the landlord.  At times the Court seems to conflate proof of liability with nominal damages.

The Court then found that the claim for increased rent injected the same individualized questions about whether services to each tenant were reduced in any substantial manner that amounted to an implied increase in rent.

As to the retaliation claim, the Court found that no representative could state that claim, either due to statute of limitations problems or a failure to have been a tenant during the relevant time period.  And as with the habitability claim, the Court agreed that a nuisance action depended heavily on facts unique to each tenant, defeating commonality.

The Court declined to consider the many proposed adjustments or amendments to claims or the class definition on Appeal, finding that such arguments are, in the first instance, matters for the trial court.

Evidence still matters when moving to compel arbitration (Avery v. Integrated Healthcare)

Once again, I find myself playing catch-up after devoting a lot of spare time to examining the logistics of career moves.  In this installment, we see that evidence still matters when moving to compel (or resist) arbitration.  In Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., (Jun. 27, 2013; pub. ord. Jul. 23, 2013), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) affirmed a trial court order denying motions to compel individual arbitration.  The plaintiffs filed a wage & hour class action against defendants, alleging failure to pay overtime properly for employees working on 12-hours shifts.  Defendants filed eight motions to compel individual arbitration against the plaintiffs.  The trial court denied all motions, finding Integrated “failed to meet [its] burden to show that any of the Plaintiffs are subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement."

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that defendants could not simply collect an assortment of documents, modified over time, and claim enforceable arbitration agreements or class waiver clauses:

Integrated sought to compel Plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims based on two arbitration agreements: (1) the Fair Treatment Process in the Tenet Employee Handbook, and (2) the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process in the Integrated Employee Handbook. We conclude Integrated is limited to the Fair Treatment Process because (1) it issued the Integrated Employee Handbook and its Alternative Dispute Resolution Process after Plaintiffs’ claims accrued, and (2) it failed to notify Plaintiffs or any other employees about the Integrated Employee Handbook.

Four months after Avery filed her initial class action complaint, Integrated unilaterally modified the Fair Treatment Process in the Tenet Employee Handbook by renaming it the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process and adding a class arbitration waiver. Integrated modified the Fair Treatment Process based on a provision that authorized the employer to “change or modify the FTP procedures from time-to-time without advance notice and without the consent of employees.” Integrated posted the Integrated Employee Handbook containing the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process on its intranet page, but it did not provide employees with a copy of the new handbook, instruct employees to review the new handbook on the intranet page, or even notify employees of the new handbook’s existence.

Slip op., at 10.  The Court went on to hold that the right to unilateral modification is governed by the covenant of good faith and fair dealing:  “An arbitration agreement between an employer and an employee may reserve to the employer the unilateral right to modify the agreement. (24 Hour Fitness, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1214-1215.) But the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in every contract requires the employer to exercise that right fairly and in good faith so as not to deprive the employee of his or her reasonable expectations under the agreement.”  Slip op., at 10.

The Court also found that defendant failed to provide adequate evidence of an enforceable agreement accepted by the plaintiffs.  Having affirmed the trial court on that ground, the Court declined to analyze whether the class waivers that defendants added later were simply statements of existing law under Stolt-Nielsen.

The Court concluded its opinion by stating that an arbitration agreement in an employee handbook could be enforceable, so long as the agreement and its acceptance are adequately proven by substantial evidence.

On remand after Brinker, Court of Appeal reconsiders prior decision and orders certificaiton in Faulkinbury

The press of obligations at work left little time for my blogging, which I regret.  And, I haven't seen anything all that interesting in the class action/complex litigation arena ​in the last few weeks.  That did change last week when, in Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc. (May 10, 2013), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) [What?!?] reconsidered its prior decision following remand after Brinker​.  The Court concluded that, along with the overtime class it previously ordered certified, the meal period and rest break claims should also have been certified.

Just to summarize, if my prose above was too painful to follow, the trial court denied class certification as to all claims, covered by three subclasses referred to as the Meal Break Class, the Rest Break Class and the Overtime Class.  The Court of Appeal, in a decision previously published as Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., 185 Cal. App. 4th 1363 (2010), review granted Oct. 13, 2010, S184995 (Faulkinbury I), reversed the order denying certification of the overtime class but affirmed the order denying certification of the Meal Break Class and the Rest Break Class.  Then Brinker​.  Then review granted.  Then remand with an order to vacate Faulkinbury I and reconsider in light of Brinker.

Summarizing the Supreme Court's guidance regarding the consideration of merits at the certification stage, the Court said:​

The Supreme Court confirmed a class certification motion should not be a vehicle for resolving the merits of a claim, but recognized too that “[w]hen evidence or legal issues germane to the certification question bear as well on aspects of the merits, a court may properly evaluate them.”  (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 1023‑1024.)  The court concluded:  “Presented with a class certification motion, a trial court must examine the plaintiff’s theory of recovery, assess the nature of the legal and factual disputes likely to be presented, and decide whether individual or common issues predominate.  To the extent the propriety of certification depends upon disputed threshold legal or factual questions, a court may, and indeed must, resolve them.  Out of respect for the problems arising from one-way intervention, however, a court generally should eschew resolution of such issues unless necessary.  [Citations.]  Consequently, a trial court does not abuse its discretion if it certifies (or denies certification of) a class without deciding one or more issues affecting the nature of a given element if resolution of such issues would not affect the ultimate certification decision.”  (Id. at p. 1025.)

Slip op., at 6.​  Continuing, the Court observed that the Supreme Court "emphasized that '[c]laims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class treatment.'"  Slip op., at 7.  The support for that last proposition was summarized as follows:

Brinker court cited three Court of Appeal cases:  Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Jaimez); Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1524 (Ghazaryan); and Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1193 (Bufil).  In Jaimez, Ghazaryan, and Bufil, the Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion by denying class certification.  (Jaimez, supra, at pp. 1299‑1307; Ghazaryan, supra, at pp. 1534‑1538; Bufil, supra, at pp. 1205‑1206.)  These courts reasoned that the plaintiffs were challenging a uniform employment policy that allegedly violated California law, and, therefore, this violation could be proved (or disproved) through common facts and law.  (Jaimez, supra, at pp. 1299‑1300; Ghazaryan, supra, at pp. 1536‑1538; Bufil, supra, at p. 1206.)  The courts in Jaimez and Ghazaryan also concluded that common issues predominated even if the employment policy did not affect each employee in the same way and damages would need to be proved individually.  (Jaimez, supra, at pp. 1301, 1303‑1305; Ghazaryan, supra, at p. 1536.)

Slip op., at 7, n. 1.

​This is one area in which California certification procedural law appears to track somewhat more favorably for certification than does federal law applying Rule 23.  At the very least, it appears to conceptually negate the flavor-of-the-month argument, magically extracted from Wal-Mart​, that a defendant is entitled to assert individual defenses in every case against every class member, thereby defeating class certification in virtually every conceivable case (which, logically, could not be true or someone might have noticed this over the decades upon decades of class action jurisprudence, but I digress as I so often do).  Wal-Mart​, a case about a specific intent type of violation, says nothing of the sort, absent very creative quote extraction, coupled with very creative editorial content used to describe that very creative quote extraction. But stated another way, Brinker​ doesn't diverge from the federal track so much as hold the line that California has charted for some time, while cagey defense counsel try to move the tracks over on the federal side.  I suspect that, when the dust settles, the tracks will have moved back to a point closer to convergence, but not until there isn't much left of that Wal-Mart horse to beat.

Turning back to the Faulkinbury II decision, ​other observations of note include:

• Justice Werdegar's concurrence in Brinker is identified as providing guidance on the question of missed meal breaks, Slip op., at 10.​
• ​The Court agreed with the analysis of Brinker supplied by Bradley v. Networkers Internat., LLC, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1129 (2012), Slip op., at 16.
• Without deciding the lawfulness of the policy, the Court concluded that the question of whether the on-duty meal period policy was legal was a question suitable for certification, even if questions existed as to the frequency that meal periods were missed or the reasons as to why they were missed.  Slip op., at 15-16.
  

I can't promise that work obligations won't steal blogging time, but I will keep doing my best to highlight major decisions and events, intermingled with my brand of commentary.

California Supreme Court activity for week of April 8, 2013

On April 10, 2013, the California held its (usually) weekly conference.  Significant results include:

• in Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, the Petition was granted and the matter held, pending resolution of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation (Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order compelling individual arbitration in a case alleging class claims).
  

Second Appellate District concludes that Gentry remains good law, despite Concepcion

While it may not last much longer than it takes the ink to dry on the opinion, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One), in Franco v. Arakenian Enterprises, Inc. (November 26, 2012) considered a significant question: "The question on appeal is whether Gentry was overruled by Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. (2010) 559 U.S. ___ [130 S.Ct. 1758] (Stolt-Nielsen) and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___ [131 S.Ct. 1740] (Concepcion)."  Slip op., at 3.  Summarizing a 65-page opinion, the Court said:

We conclude that Gentry remains good law because, as required by Concepcion, it does not establish a categorical rule against class action waivers but, instead, sets forth several factors to be applied on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a class action waiver precludes employees from vindicating their statutory rights. And, as required by Stolt-Nielsen, when a class action waiver is unenforceable under Gentry, the plaintiff's claims must be adjudicated in court, where the plaintiff may file a putative class action. Accordingly, we affirm.

Slip op., at 3.

The decision follows an earlier opinion in the matter, Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1277 (2009) (Franco I).  That procedural and factual history is extensive, and I won't summarize it.  The opinion also contains a footnote indicating that it invited comment on D.R. Horton, but because Franco did not respond to the request, the Court declined to address the impact of that matter.

 The decision also has an exhaustive review of arbitration decisions in the context of statutory claims.  After that history, the Court examined the reach of the Concepcion.  An extended portion of the Court's analysis cited approvingly to a law review analysis: Gilles & Friedman, After Class: Aggregate Litigation in the Wake of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2012) 79 U.Chi. L.Rev. 623.

Ultimately, after looking at the Question Presented in Concepcion, the Court concluded that, in this case, Franco lacked the means, not the incentive, to pursue his claims.  That distinction, the Court held, justified the trial court's decision to deny the petition to compel arbitration.

Then, tucked right into the end of the opinion, the Court offered a monumental observation that would have had great significance if the Court had considered D.R. Horton:

Which brings us to the subject of Concepcion's effect, if any, on PAGA claims. We have already concluded that Athens Services's arbitration agreement — the MAP — contains two unenforceable clauses: the class action waiver and the prohibition on acting as an attorney general. (See Franco I, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1297–1300, 1303; fn. 2, ante.) Those clauses operate independently of each other: One restricts Franco‘s pursuit of his rest and meal period claims while the other prohibits his recovery under the PAGA. Together, they render the MAP tainted with illegality, making it unenforceable and permitting Franco to adjudicate his claims in a judicial forum. (See Franco I, at p. 1303; fn. 2, ante.) Concepcion does not preclude a court from declaring an arbitration agreement unenforceable if the agreement is permeated by an unlawful purpose.

Slip op., at 64.  See that?!  Right there?!  This Court gets it!  If you impose a contract that violates the law (e.g., the NLRA), then the contract is unenforcable in Court on the general ground of illegality.  Any contract that violates the NLRA, not just arbitration agreements, is void and unenforceable.  How hard is this, really?  And here we finally see a Court clearly articulate the illegality defense analysis, but the Court declined to address the NLRA argument because one of the parties was too busy to answer.  Wonderful.

Of course, this case may vanish for years when it gets sucked up into the California Supreme Court's Gentry re-examination.

In Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Sprint's call cannot be completed as dialed

I did warn you, but in the post below, so you might not be aware that you were warned.  In Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (October 29, 2012), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Five) had yet more work to do in the long-running saga of the Cellphone Termination Fee Cases.  In Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 193 Cal. App. 4th 298 (2011) the Court affirmed a December 2008 judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in this class action against Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (Sprint).  The Court also affirmed the trial court's order granting Plaintiffs a partial new trial on the issue of Sprint's actual damages and the calculation of a setoff to which Sprint might be entitled.  The case was then remanded for further proceedings limited to those issues.  But, when the matter returned to the trial court, Sprint moved to compel arbitration of the named plaintiffs' claims, the same claims addressed in the Court's affirmance of the 2008 judgment.  The trial court declined to consider the motion, finding that jurisdiction on remand was limited to the issues set forth in the Court's opinion.

While this sounds like it could be a case about arbitration law, it isn't.  It is entirely a decision about trial court jurisdiction after an appeal and remand with directions:

As the language of the cited cases indicates, the rule requiring a trial court to follow the terms of the remittitur is jurisdictional in nature. (People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367 (Dutra).) The issues the trial court may address in the remand proceedings are therefore limited to those specified in the reviewing court‘s directions, and if the reviewing court does not direct the trial court to take a particular action or make a particular determination, the trial court is not authorized to do so. (Bach, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at pp. 302, 303, 304; accord, Hanna v. City of Los Angeles (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 363, 376 (Hanna) [where on prior appeal reviewing court did not direct trial court on remand to determine whether statutory violations had occurred, any such determination would be in excess of jurisdiction on remand].)

Slip op., at 8.  The Court then explained that a new trial on damages only did not open the door for the trial court to consider other issues raised by Sprint.

Law firm cannot recover fees as prevailing party when represented by Of Counsel

This isn't really on topic, but it was interesting enough to note.  In Sands & Associates v. Martin Juknavorian (October 10, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Divsion One) held that the Of Counsel relationship is sufficiently "close, personal, continuous, and regular" that a firm represented by Of Counsel to the firm cannot recover fees as a prevailing party, even when a prevailing party clause applies to the dispute.

Do NOT cite opinions after review is granted by the California Supreme Court (even if you claim you aren't relying on them). Stop. No. Don't. I see that.

Generally speaking, unpublished cases cannot be cited or relied upon by parties or courts.  California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115 states, in part: "Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action."  Cal. Rules Ct., rule 8.1115(a).  The only exceptions arise when the same parties are involved, or the conduct of a party in one case is relevant in criminal or disciplinary proceedings in another.  When review of a published case is granted by the California Supreme Court, it is depublished: "Unless otherwise ordered under (2), an opinion is no longer considered published if the Supreme Court grants review or the rendering court grants rehearing."  Cal. Rules Ct., rule 8.1105(e).  In The People v. E*Poly Star, Inc. (May 14, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) let E*Poly and the Trial Court have it for referencing Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1159, review granted Oct. 20, 2010 (S184929) (Aryeh).

On the issue of improper citation of an unpublished decision, the Court said:

Supreme Court review in Aryeh was granted on October 20, 2010 (S184929), more than a month prior to the filing of the district attorneys' lawsuit. As of that date any citation to, or reliance upon, that decision was expressly prohibited by rule 8.1115(a) of the California Rules of Court except under the limited circumstances set forth in rule 8.1115(b), none of which appears to be applicable to the case at bar. (See rule 8.1105(e)(1) [“[u]nless otherwise ordered . . ., an opinion is no longer considered published if the Supreme Court grants review”].) Nonetheless, employing something akin to the rhetorical device formally known as paraleipsis or apophasis—that is, mentioning something while disclaiming any intention of mentioning it—E*Poly Star in the trial court and once again in its brief in this court, after noting the Court of Appeal decision in Aryeh is not citable, has discussed the case at length and argues we should defer to its reasoning.  This use of an unpublished, noncitable opinion is a direct violation of rule 8.1115(a) and is wholly unacceptable. (Cf. rule 8.276(a)(4) [authorizing sanctions on the court's own motion for any unreasonable violation of the Rules of Court].)

Slip op., at 12-13 (footnote references omitted).  But the Court wasn't done, stating in a footnote:

E*Poly Star's improper use of Aryeh transcends suggesting we consider the case for its persuasive value. While purporting to recognize the split panel decision by our colleagues in Division Eight is no longer even citable, E*Poly Star contends it is, in fact, binding on us: “It is respectfully submitted that it is not the function of this reviewing court to second-guess itself and re-address a prior published decision, merely and especially because the decision is being reviewed by the State Supreme Court.” That is simply wrong. Even were the case still published, we would not be obligated to adopt its result; there is no “horizontal stare decisis” in the Court of Appeal. (Jessen v. Mentor Corp. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1489, fn. 10; In re Marriage of Shaban (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 398, 409.) Although, as E*Poly Star states, we frequently follow a prior decision by another division of this court or another district, we will not do so if there is reason to disagree with the conclusion of that case. (People v. Kim (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 836, 847; Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 485.)

Slip op., at 12.  "Horizontal stare decisis."  Priceless.  There really ARE some things money can't buy.

Ending its discussion of the use of uncitable authority, the Court also chided the Trial Court:

Similarly, the trial court's reference to the Aryeh opinion and its implicit adoption of its holding with the statement it “agrees with Aryeh's analysis” constitute an impermissible use of a noncitable decision. If the trial court is somehow familiar with an unpublished opinion and finds its analysis persuasive, then it is free to utilize that analysis, just as courts may adopt as their own the analysis contained in the parties' briefs. Any reference to the unpublished case itself, however, violates rule 8.1115(a) even if, as here, accompanied by the qualification, “even though not citable.”

Slip op., at 13.  I saw this happen several times while Brinker was pending.  A number of trial courts observed that Brinker was under review but then said that they agreed with its analysis and were adopting it.  Naughty.

The Court also discusses statute of limitation and accrual issues that may be impacted by Aryeh, but I thought the discussion of uncitable authority was a lot more entertaining than a discussion that could be mooted by Aryeh and might be nullified on a grant and hold pending Aryeh in any event.