The Supreme Court today announced its January calendar. The court will hear argument in six cases, including one of the oldest civil cases on the court’s docket — Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc.
On January 5, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):
Ardon v. City of Los Angeles: (1) Does inadvertent disclosure of attorney work product and privileged documents in response to a Public Records Act request waive those privileges and protections? (2) Should the attorney who received the documents be disqualified because she examined them and refused to return them?
This case is being argued rather quickly. The court granted review less than nine months ago and a response to an amicus curiae brief was filed just last month.
Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.: 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)?
The court is answering these questions at the request of the Ninth Circuit. This summer, the court invited the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to file an amicus curiae brief in the case.
Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc.: This is an un-hold case. Review was originally granted almost three years ago, but briefing was deferred pending a decision in Wisdom v. Accentcare. However, the court dismissed review in Wisdom after that case settled and the court then asked for briefing in Baltazar. The Wisdom case raised the 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.)”
Desaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula: 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”?
People v. Rangel: This is an automatic appeal from a February 1999 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.
People v. Juarez: Does Penal Code section 1387 require dismissal of a criminal complaint if two prior complaints have been dismissed but the third complaint charges that the identical criminal act violates a different section of the Penal Code than had the two previous complaints?