At its Wednesday conference, in addition to agreeing to answer another state law question for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court’s actions of note included:
- The court granted review in Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc. [Disclosure: it’s a Horvitz & Levy petition for review that the court granted.] Justice Groban, attending his first Wednesday conference, was recused. The Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal’s published opinion in the case upheld a liability verdict in favor of the injured employee of an independent contractor and against the hirer of the contractor. One issue is whether the jury should have been instructed that a prerequisite to liability is the hirer’s affirmative contribution to the unsafe condition that caused the injury.
- The court also granted review in In re Palmer, where the First District, Division Two, held in a published opinion that the habeas corpus petitioner is “entitled to a new parole hearing due to the failure of the Board of Parole Hearings to comply with a statutory mandate to give ‘great weight’ to certain factors related to [the petitioner] having been a minor when he committed his crime.” This is the second review grant in the case. The first time, the Supreme Court granted and held pending, and then transferred for reconsideration in light of, its decision in In re Butler. Unusually, in addition to granting review this second time, the court depublished the Court of Appeal’s opinion, depriving the opinion of even the possible persuasive effect it otherwise would have retained pending review.
- The court granted and held in In re Certified Tire and Service Centers Wage and Hour Cases. Action is deferred pending a decision in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., which is before the court on reference from the Ninth Circuit. Oman concerns wage disputes between out-of-state employers and employees who sometimes work in California, and includes this question, “Does the Armenta/Gonzalez bar on averaging wages apply to a pay formula that generally awards credit for all hours on duty, but which, in certain situations resulting in higher pay, does not award credit for all hours on duty?” In the Tire and Service Centers case, the Fourth District, Division One, in a published opinion, rejected the plaintiff employees’ contention that, as summarized by the appellate court, the defendant employers “violated the applicable minimum wage and rest period requirements by implementing a compensation program, which guaranteed its automotive technicians a specific hourly wage above the minimum wage for all hours worked during each pay period but also gave them the possibility of earning a higher hourly wage for all hours worked during each pay period based on certain productivity measures.”
- The court denied the original writ petition in People v. Superior Court (Scripps Mercy Hospital), a criminal case, but Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar recorded a vote to grant and transfer the petition to the Court of Appeal.
- There were three criminal case grant-and-holds and the court dumped eight cases that were grant-and-holds.