September 21, 2012

Summary of September 19, 2012 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, September 19, 2012. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.

Review Granted

Iskanian v. CLS Transportation of Los Angeles, LLC, S204032—Review Granted—September 19, 2012

The questions presented are whether (1) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California law holding that class action waivers as to employees’ unwaivable rights are contrary to public policy; (2) the FAA preempts state law as to unenforceability of waivers of employees’ rights to representative action under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA); and (3) whether the employer waived its right to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two, held in a published opinion, Iskanian v. CLS Transportation of Los Angeles, LLC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 949, that (1) the FAA preempts California law holding that class action waivers as to employees’ unwaivable rights to be contrary to public policy; (2) the FAA preempts state law as to the unenforceability of waivers of employees’ right to representative action under PAGA; and (3) the employer had not waived its right to arbitration.

In re IJ, S204622—Review Granted—September 19, 2012

The question presented is whether evidence that a 14-year-old girl had been sexually abused by her father was sufficient in itself to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivisions (b), (d) or (j), that her younger male siblings were at substantial risk of future sexual abuse or other risk of harm.

The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, held in a published opinion, In re IJ (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1351, that the father’s sexual abuse of his daughter was sufficient evidence to find that the younger male siblings were at a substantial risk of sexual abuse or other harm.

420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, S204684 and County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective, S204663—Review Granted and Held—September 19, 2012

The questions presented in these cases concern preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities.

In 420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 703, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, held a city ordinance restricting medical marijuana collectives: (1) did not create a suspect class under the equal protection clause; (2) was not subject to occupation preemption; (3) did not contradict the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) by containing a criminal enforcement provision; (4) did not contradict the MMPA by prohibiting collectives with four or more members; (5) did not violate procedural due process by prohibiting collectives with four or more members; and (6) did not violate members’ state constitutional rights to privacy by requiring record keeping.

In County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 601, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, held: (1) the MMPA protects marijuana dispensaries against statutory drug abatement nuisance actions; (2) the MMPA protects dispensaries against general nuisance abatement statutes; and (3) the county’s ban on dispensaries was preempted by the MMPA.

Both cases are held pending the Court’s decisions in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638 and People v. G3 Holistic, Inc., S198395, which present issues concerning preemption, under federal or state law, of local ordinances regulating or banning the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related activities, and standing to challenge such ordinances.

Review Denied (with dissenting justices)

None.

Depublished

None.

2 Responses to “Summary of September 19, 2012 conference report for civil cases”

  1. Hi, Brad,

    Any idea when you think the California Supreme Court might hear oral argument on City of Riverside v. Inland Empire and People v. G3 Holistic, Inc.?

    Donna

  2. Hi Donna. Both cases are fully briefed, but there is no way to predict how long it might take the Court to set them for oral argument. In other posts, we’ve noted that sometimes the Court will hear argument within six or nine months of granting review, but other times it can take the Court two years or more to schedule oral argument.

Leave a Reply