The Supreme Court's statement of issues on review in Reid v. Google, no. S158965, is up. It looks like the UCL restitution issue will not be a major focus of the case:
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Should California law recognize the "stray remarks" doctrine, which permits the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment to disregard isolated discriminatory remarks or comments unrelated to the decision-making process as insufficient to establish discrimination? (2) Are evidentiary objections not expressly ruled on at the time of decision on a summary judgment motion preserved for appeal?
UPDATE: The blog Cal Biz Lit has an interesting post on the summary judgment issues that the Supreme Court will be reviewing in this case. And an article by Mike McKee in Monday's Recorder reports that "Google Appeal Carries Big Evidence Issue." An excerpt:
E-mails were flying between litigators Thursday as word spread that the California Supreme Court had agreed to resolve a thorny issue over how trial court judges should treat evidence.
Specifically, the high court decided Wednesday it was time to take a closer look at so-called Biljac rulings to clarify what lawyers and trial court judges must do to ensure that evidentiary objections are preserved for appellate review when summary judgment motions are decided.
For more discussion of the Biljac issue, see this post from my other blog, The Appellate Practitioner.