White Glove Service for San Diego’s Hospitality Industry: Driven by Passionate People, Stokes Wagner Provides 5-Star Legal Services to Those in the... People Skills, Digital Leadership, Empowered Clients: Jackson & Wilson Showcase the Human Side of Law and Business withCutting-Edge... Attorney Safety: Interview With Stephen Kelson: Earlier this year, I shared statistics about threats of violence made against attorneys.... What Makes Your Firm Stand Out?: Tell us if you’ve met this guy before: John Smith is a personal injury attorney who... Compartmentalize and Integrate: Five Ways to Handle it ‘All’: I am a lawyer and a parent. I also try to have a social life, volunteer, take care of my... Tips for the Well- Dressed (Male) Lawyer: Every new parent knows there are far more clothing options for baby girls than baby boys.... Community News – September 2017: Attorney Antoinette Middleton, founder of the Law Offices of Antoinette Middleton, was... Tried, Tested & Triumphant: Khashayar Law Group Secures Position as One of Southern California’s Top... 7 Ways to Make Billing More Effective: Lawyers may practice in different areas of the law and serve a wide range of clients, but... Protecting Your Firm from Ransomware: Ransomware attacks are affecting every type of business in America, and law firms are no...
Executive Presentations-468x60-1

McIntyre’s Civil Alert. Organized Succinct Summaries

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Arbitration (Employment)
Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) _ Cal.4th _ , 2016 WL 1176599: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling reversing the trial court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was written on a preprinted form and offered on a take-it-or-leaveit basis, making it a contract of adhesion. But the ability of the parties to seek preliminary injunctive relief in the superior court, as is authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.8(b), did not render the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable. (March 28, 2016.)

Employment
Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (2016) _ Cal.4th _ , 2016 WL 1176599: See summary above under Arbitration.
Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (2016) _ Cal.4th _ , 2016 WL 1296101: The California Supreme Court answered questions certified by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding California wage order requirements that an employer provide suitable seating for employees under certain circumstances. The wage orders at issue state that “[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” (California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 11040, subdivision 14(A) (Wage Order No. 4-2001), 11070, subdivision 14(A) (Wage Order No. 7-2001).) The California Supreme Court answers were as follows: (1) The “nature of the work” refers to an employee’s tasks performed at a given location for which a right to a suitable seat is claimed, rather than a “holistic” consideration of the entire range of an employee’s duties anywhere on the jobsite during a complete shift. If the tasks being performed at a given location reasonably permit sitting, and provision of a seat would not interfere with performance of any other tasks that may require standing, a seat is called for. (2) Whether the nature of the work reasonably permits sitting is a question to be determined objectively based on the totality of the circumstances. An employer’s business judgment and the physical layout of the workplace are relevant but not dispositive factors. The inquiry focuses on the nature of the work, not an individual employee’s characteristics. (3) The nature of the work aside, if an employer argues there is no suitable seat available, the burden is on the employer to prove unavailability. (April 4, 2016.)

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Arbitration (Attorney Fees, Employment)
Ling v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1169307: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order correcting and remanding an arbitrator’s attorney’s fees award under the California Arbitration Act (Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq.). The arbitrator exceeded his power by awarding statutory attorney’s fees to a defendant employer for work performed in defeating an employee’s inextricably intertwined claims, contrary to public policy embedded in Labor Code section 1194’s one-way fee shifting provision. The trial court’s remedy—correcting the award and remanding to the arbitrator to determine plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party—was proper. However, the Court of Appeal vacated the trial court’s award of attorney fees to plaintiff for her petition to vacate the arbitrator’s first award because that fee award was not authorized by either a statute or the arbitration agreement. (C.A. 6th, March 25, 2016.)

Civil Procedure (Anti-SLAPP, Collateral Estoppel, Demurrer, Motion to Strike)
Baughn v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ : The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying an anti-SLAPP motion to strike because defendant California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs’ action arose from conduct taken by defendant in furtherance of its right of speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. (C.A. 3rd, March 11, 2016.)
County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Board (Service Employees International Union, Local 721) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1238737: See summary below under Employment and Labor.
Fenimore v. Regents of the University of California (2016) _ Cal. App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1191530: See summary below under Torts.
Hawkins v. SunTrust Bank (2016) _ Cal.App. 4th _ , 2016 WL 1367067: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the pleadings for defendant in an action alleging wrongful foreclosure. The trial court properly ruled that the action was barred by a South Carolina judicial foreclosure judgment. (C.A. 2nd, April 6, 2016.)
Staniforth v. The Judges’ Retirement System (Chiang) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1224501: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend because the statute of limitations had expired. The action involved a subgroup of 10 retired jurists alleged by petition to have been underpaid, the last underpayment occurred in early 1987, and every potential member or beneficiary allegedly underpaid the benefits by JRS was deceased by January 1, 2005. The action, pleading a common count for “money owed” to the heirs of those deceased jurists, was not filed until 2012. The Court of Appeal found it was unnecessary to definitively divine the theory of liability to identify the applicable statute of limitations because it was satisfied that, under any and all of the possible theories underlying petitioners’ common counts, all claims by the heirs based on underpaid pension payments accrued at least seven years (if not decades) before the present action was filed, and the longest of the possible statute of limitations periods on the claims would have expired well before petitioners commenced the present action. (C.A. 4th, filed March 14, 2016, published March 29, 2016.)

Construction
City of El Centro v. Lanier (State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1221948: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying a writ petition seeking to prevent enforcement of Labor Code section 1782, which prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a public construction project if the city has a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with the state prevailing wage laws. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment upholding the constitutionality of section 1782 against a “home rule” challenge under Article XI, section 5(a) and Article XIII, section 24(b) of the California Constitution that was brought by several charter cities. (C.A. 4th, March 29, 2016.)

Employment and Labor
Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) _ Cal. App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1298637: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant in an action alleging disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government Code, § 12900 et seq.), as well as wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Court of Appeal found that a California employer may be liable under FEHA for failing to accommodate a nondisabled employee’s request to modify his work schedule to permit him to care for a disabled family member. (C.A. 2nd, April 4, 2016.)
City of El Centro v. Lanier (State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1221948: See summary above under Construction.
County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Board (Service Employees International Union, Local 721) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1238737: The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part rulings of the trial court. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Act) (Government Code, § 3500 et seq.) provisions for impasse resolution through advisory factfinding (factfinding provisions) do not violate Article XI, section 11, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution by delegating a county’s or a city’s home rule powers to a private person or body because the provisions do not divest a county or a city of its final decision making authority. The Court of Appeal held that Act’s factfinding provisions apply to impasses arising during the negotiation of any bargainable matter. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the trial court erred in denying an anti- SLAPP motion to strike and awarding attorney fees and costs of $15,000 to the County of Riverside under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 425.16(c)(1) after it found the anti- SLAPP motion was frivolous. (C.A. 4th, March 30, 2016.)
Davis v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1182718: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part decisions by the trial court in a case alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy and failure to pay wages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court giving to the jury CACI instructions amended to reflect the holding in Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s post-trial request for declaratory and/or injunctive relief after the jury awarded plaintiff no damages for wrongful termination. While the jury found that plaintiff’s age was a substantial motivating factor in his termination, it concluded that defendant would have made the same termination decision for legitimate reasons. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s directed verdict for defendant on the wage claim, finding that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to allow the wage claim to go to the jury. (C.A. 2nd, March 28, 2016.)
Ling v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1169307: See summary above under Arbitration.
Pinheiro v. Civil Service Commission for the County of Fresno (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1212888: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a writ seeking to overturn the decision of the Civil Service Commission for the County of Fresno (Commission) upholding petitioner’s dismissal as the County’s labor relations manager. Petitioner was denied a fair hearing because the Commission relied on evidence outside the record when it upheld his dismissal. (C.A 5th, March 29, 2016.)
San Diego Housing Commission v. Public Employment Relations Board (Service Employees International Union, Local 221) (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1242539: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and declaratory judgment holding that the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Government Code section 3500 et seq.) provisions for impasse resolution through advisory factfinding (factfinding provisions) apply only to an impasse arising during the negotiation of a comprehensive memorandum of understanding, not to an impasse arising during the negotiation of a discrete bargainable issue. The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that the factfinding provisions apply to impasses arising during the negotiation of any bargainable matter. (C.A. 4th, March 30, 2016.)

Evidence
Kirchmeyer v. Phillips (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1183324: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a petition by the Executive Director (Director) of the Medical Board of California to compel production of a patient’s medical records from a psychiatrist under an investigatory subpoena duces tecum. The psychiatrist was being investigated regarding an alleged improper sexual relationship with the patient. Both the psychiatrist and the patient objected to production of the records. The Court of Appeal ruled that the medical records sought by the subpoena were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege in Evidence Code section 1014. Because the psychotherapistpatient privilege is grounded in the patient’s constitutional right of privacy, the Director had to show a compelling interest justifying production of the medical records, and failed to do so. The Director also failed to establish any exception to the privilege. (C.A. 4th, March 28, 2016.)

Real Property (CEQA)
Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of Upland (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1169302: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a writ petition seeking to set aside, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.), an ordinance prohibiting mobile medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Upland. The Court of Appeal concluded that the ordinance was not a project under CEQA. (C.A. 4th, March 25, 2016.)

Torts (Elder Abuse, Government Immunity)
Alana M. v. State of California (2016) _ Cal.App.4th _ , 2016 WL 1224879: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant based upon the immunity in Government Code section 831.2, which provides that no public entity “is liable for an injury caused by a natural condition of any unimproved public property.” The trial court properly granted summary judgment in this case where a tree fell onto a tent where plaintiff was camping with her family in Portola Redwoods State Park. (C.A. 1st, filed February 29, 2016, published March 29, 2016.)

Monty A. Mcintyre

Monty A. McIntyre follows his passions for the law and serving others by serving as a mediator, arbitrator and motion referee to help individuals, businesses and lawyers obtain rapid, reasonable resolution of disputes. He is also the Publisher of McIntyre’s California Civil Law Update and can be reached at 619-990-4312 or monty.mcintyre@gmail.com.

More Posts

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
PDF24    Send article as PDF   

Filed Under: AdvertiseSubscribe

About the Author: Monty A. McIntyre follows his passions for the law and serving others by serving as a mediator, arbitrator and motion referee to help individuals, businesses and lawyers obtain rapid, reasonable resolution of disputes. He is also the Publisher of McIntyre’s California Civil Law Update and can be reached at 619-990-4312 or monty.mcintyre@gmail.com.

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Leave a Reply

  • Polls
    Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.