The opinions are both up. Here are quick excerpts from the introductions:
We hold that an employee who, on behalf of himself and other employees, sues an employer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) for Labor Code violations must satisfy class action requirements, but that those requirements need not be met when an employee‘s representative action against an employer is seeking civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.).
This case presents two issues. First, may a plaintiff labor union that has not suffered actual injury under the unfair competition law, and that is not an "aggrieved employee" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, nevertheless bring a representative action under those laws (1) as the assignee of employees who have suffered an actual injury and who are aggrieved employees, or (2) as an association whose members have suffered actual injury and are aggrieved employees? The answer is "no." Second, must a representative action under the unfair competition law be brought as a class action? The answer is "yes," for the reasons stated in the companion case of Arias v. Superior Court (June 29, 2009, S155965) ___ Cal.4th ___.
This morning the Supreme Court announced that on Monday at 10:00 a.m., it will be handing down its decisions in the Arias and Amalgamated cases, which were argued in early April. These cases address, among other issues, whether formal class certification is required in PAGA and UCL actions (post-Prop. 64) in which relief is sought on behalf of others. Amalgamated may also address whether associational standing survived Prop. 64.
See this blog post for the statements of the issues and links to the Court of Appeal opinions. Reports on the oral arguments are available here and here. When the decisions are posted, they will be avialable at these links:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied review and depublication in the Troyk case (docket). Justices Baxter, Chin and Corrigan voted to grant review. An article (subscription) by Mike McKee in yesterday's Recorder discussed this case in more detail.
Today, the Supreme Court granted review (unanimously) in another significant Prop. 64 case, Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, no. S171845. The Court of Appeal opinion is no longer citable as precedent. My original post on Kwikset is here. Thanks to the blog reader who emailed with this development.
I'm coming up on a particularly busy period at work and am therefore putting the blog on hiatus once again. You can always reach me at my office by phone (415-788-4220) or by email at email@example.com. I will interrupt the hiatus for significant events of interest (such as the Ninth Circuit's Dukes v. Wal-Mart ruling or any ruling on the Tobacco rehearing petition).
One thing I hope to follow is trial courts' application of the Tobacco case. If you learn of any trial-level rulings (state or federal) addressing Tobacco, please forward them. I can post them online for everyone's benefit, as I did back in 2004 when the trial courts started ruling on the Prop. 64 retroactivity question. I will probably interrupt my hiatus to do this if I receive copies of orders. Thanks!
On Tuesday, June 2, 2009, a petition for rehearing was filed in In re Tobacco Cases II, no. S147345. The answer will be due on Wednesday, June 10, and the Supreme Court's ruling can be expected by June 17 (unless the court grants itself an extension of time).
Additionally, on Monday, June 1, a substitution of attorneys was filed, substituting Reed Smith in place of Loeb & Loeb as counsel for one of the defendants. According to the Daily Journal, Loeb & Loeb represents Chief Justice George in connection with his estate planning, which is why he was recused from hearing the case. Justice Eileen Moore of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, sat in his stead.
A rehearing petition was also filed, and denied, recently in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, no. S153846. In that case, the Supreme Court granted itself an extension of time before denying the petition.
Paul Karlsgodt, author of ClassActionBlawg.com, has a very interesting post on Judge Sotomayor's rulings in class action cases. According to Paul, she was a member of the three-judge panels in both In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) and In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006). (See this post for more on those cases.)
This morning, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's reversal of a $1 billion verdict in a UCL/CLRA case. Miller v. Bank of America, NT & SA, ___ Cal.4th ___ (Jun. 1, 2009). The opinion contains no particular discussion of any UCL or CLRA issue. Instead, it focuses in on certain provisions of the Financial Code governing fee setoffs by banks, and holds that BofA's practices did not run afoul of those provisions.