May 13, 2011

Summary of May 11, 2011 conference report for civil cases

The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, May 11, 2011. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted (not including grant-and-transfers), (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal, or (4) the Court has denied a Court of Appeal’s publication request. This week we note the Court has granted and held in three Second District Court of Appeal cases. We have previously discussed the Court’s grant-and-hold procedure here.

Review Granted

Hodge v. AON Insurance Services, S191415 —Review Granted and Held—May 11, 2011.

The question presented is whether insurance claims adjusters fall within the administrative exemption (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, section 11040) to the requirement that employees are entitled to overtime compensation. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, held the adjusters were employed in an administrative capacity and were not entitled to overtime compensation. The Supreme Court granted review and ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual), S156555, which presents the same issue.

Felix v. Aronson, S191874 –Review Granted and Held—May 11, 2011.

The question presented is whether a plaintiff in a personal injury action can recover all damages billed by a medical provider or only the lesser amount the plaintiff’s medical insurer actually paid. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, held the trial court did not err by reducing the award of past medical expenses to the amount actually paid for the care. The Supreme Court granted review and ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Howell v. Hamilton Meats, S179115, which presents the same issue.

United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases, S191908 –Review Granted and Held—May 11, 2011.

The question presented is whether the trial court erred in awarding statutory fees to a prevailing defendant employer in an action alleging failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to maintain and provide itemized wage statements, and conversion. The unsuccessful plaintiff argued Labor Code section 1194 (regarding actions to recover unpaid overtime) bars the fee award because it contains a unilateral fee-shifting provision allowing fees only to a prevailing plaintiff. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, held the defendant was not barred from seeking statutory attorney fees solely because the plaintiff’s lawsuit included a claim for overtime compensation as one of several causes of action. But the Court of Appeal also concluded that the other causes action did not entitle the defendant to an award of statutory fees because “a claim for remedial compensation under Labor Code section 226.7 does not trigger the reciprocal fee recovery provisions of [Labor Code] section 218.5.” The Supreme Court granted review and ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827, which raises the same issue.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.

Court of Appeal Publication Request Denied

None.

Leave a Reply