Last week, on February 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted review in Goonewardene v. ADP, No. S238941. In this case, the Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's UCL and FAL claims for lack of standing, but allowed several other claims to move forward. Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, 5 Cal.App.4th 154 (2016). My original post on the opinion is here.
I haven't seen the petition for review, but it's possible that it focused on the other claims considered in the Court of Appeal opinion, rather than the UCL and FAL claims. This is the issue on review, according to the docket:
Does the aggrieved employee in a lawsuit based on unpaid overtime have viable claims against the outside vendor that performed payroll services under a contract with the employer?
Under Rule of Court 8.115(e), as amended last year, the Court of Appeal opinion remains citable despite the grant of review, although it lacks precedential effect.