Your first taste of Brinker in 2011, compliments of Hernandez v. Chipotle

/

On January 26, 2011, the Supreme Court held a weekly conference.  Of particular note was the "GRANTED and Held" Order in the matter of Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.  Hernandez was striking for how vehemently it ignored Jaimez when it chose to follow the most anti-employee decisions of various federal courts and then enunciate a meal period standard that is the functional equivalent of the standard applicable to rest breaks.  See prior blog post here.  Maybe it means nothing at all other than the Supreme Court doesn't want published meal period cases floating around while Brinker is pending.  Or maybe the Supreme Court is close to the finish line on Brinker and views Hernandez as inconsistent with its intended holdings.

California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno to depart for private sector

/

California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, the only Democrat on the current Court, announced plans to step down from the Court after almost 10 years there.  February 28th will be his last day.  Governor Jerry Brown will appoint his successor.

Justice Moreno authored the majority opinion in Tobacco II.

California Supreme Court activity for weeks of December 27, 2010 and January 3, 2011

/

The California Supreme Court did not hold conferences for the weeks of December 27, 2010 and January 3, 2011.  Expect a long conference activity report next week...when I will be on vacation.

Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes set for oral argument before Supreme Court

/

The Unites States Supreme Court moves right along once it grants a writ of certiorari.  Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes has been set for oral argument on Tuesday, March 29, 2011.  We won't have to wait that long before (potentially) receiving some guidance from the current Supreme Court about class action standards.  The only uncertainty is whether the Court will limit its analysis to sex discrimination cases or offer more widely applicable guidelines.

Thanks to SCOTUSblog for the argument schedule.

BREAKING NEWS: Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. decision to be released November 18, 2010

/

Earlier today, the California Supreme Court posted a notice of forthcoming filings, indicating that  Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. will be filed on November 18, 2010, at approximately 10:00 a.m.

In Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., plaintiff Pineda advanced the theory that restitution of "penalties" recoverable under Labor Code section 203 (waiting time penalties) was available under the UCL because the penalty was a vested property interest due upon failure to timely pay wages.  Pineda also argued that the correct statute of limitation was that for suits to recover wages (3 years), not the statute for recovery of penalties (generally 1 year).  The Court of Appeal rejected both theories.  My earlier post about Pineda is here.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of November 8, 2010

/

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on November 10, 2010. Notable results include:

  • On a Petition for Review, review was denied in Walnut Producers v. Diamond Foods (August 16, 2010), discussed briefly on this blog here.  [Arbitration agreement with class arbitration ban not unconscionable]
  • On a Petition for Review, with an associated request to depublish, review and depublication were both denied in Gutierrez v. Commerce Club (August 23, 2010), discussed on this blog here.  [Reversal of Order sustaining demurrer to class allegations]

California Supreme Court activity for the week of October 18, 2010

/

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on October 20, 2010. Notable results include: 

  • On a Petition for Review, review was denied in Morgan v. United Retail (July 13, 2010) [obligations under Labor Code section 226], covered previously here.
  • On a Petition for Review, review was granted in Aryeh v. Cannon Business Solutions (June 22, 2010).  In Aryeh, the plaintiff argued that a continuing violation theory applied to his UCL claim, extending the period during which he could bring a claim.  The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. 

California Supreme Court activity for the week of October 11, 2010

/

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on October 13, 2010.  Notable results include:

  • On a Petition for Review, a grant and hold was issued in Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc. (June 24, 2010), covered previously here.

I previously wrote that the opinion in Faulkinbury offered nothing interesting in my opinion.  The Court of Appeal simply repeated the refrain that the trial court has fairly broad discretion when ruling on a motion for class certification.  However, after Wednesday, Faulkinbury just got more interesting.  The Supreme Court issued its grant and hold pending...wait for it...the outcome in Brinker.  One might surmise that the standard applied by the trial court in Faulkinbury may be materially affected by the outcome of Brinker.  That's interesting.  It suggests that the Supreme Court is thinking about how the certification process will be impacted by its ruling in Brinker.  In fact, the Supreme Court may already have some tentative thoughts about the likelihood of that occurring.  After all, since the trial court denied certification of a meal period claim in Faulkinbury, one could suppose that the Supreme Court is leaning towards a decision in Brinker that would change that result.

Curious about Pineda v. Bank of America? See how it went for yourself.

/

Yesterday the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pineda v. Bank of America.  Here is a portion of the Court's official extended summary of the case:

Pineda filed suit against Bank of America, alleging a violation of Labor Code section 203, on October 22, 2007 — more than a year after his injury. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether his suit was timely filed. Pineda argues that a three-year statute of limitations applies to actions under section 203, relying on the following language: “Suit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise.” Defendant Bank of America disagrees, interpreting the same language to apply only when a plaintiff sues for both unpaid wages and section 203 penalties. Because Bank of America paid Pineda his final wages, albeit late, and Pineda now seeks only section 203 penalties, Bank of America reasons that a one-year statute of limitations applies and Pineda’s suit is barred as untimely.

The case was argued as part of an educational outreach session.  The Court heard argument in the Court of Appeal Courthouse in Fresno. Hundreds of students from all 9 counties in the Fifth Appellate District were given the opportunity to see the Supreme Court in operation.

You can view the oral argument at The California Channel.  Jump to about the 7:30 mark in the video to find the start of the matter.