More Supreme Court oral arguments set: Miller, Amalgamated, and Arias

This morning, the Supreme Court set the cases listed below for argument on April 7 and 8, 2009 in Los Angeles.  I will be seeking roving reporters to cover these arguments and provide reports, so please email me ([email protected]) if you are interested. 

April 7, 2009, 9:00 a.m.

Miller v. Bank of America, no. S149178 (review granted 03/21/07) (this case involves the UCL's "unlawful" prong)

• Issues: Does California law, which provides that a bank account into which public benefit funds or Social Security payments have been electronically deposited is exempt from attachment and execution, prohibit a bank from exercising its right to setoff as to charges - such as overdraft fees and insufficient fund fees - arising out of use of that same account?
• Court of Appeal opinion: Miller v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 144 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2006)

April 8, 2009, 9:00 a.m.: 

Amalgamated Transit Union v. Superior Court (First Transit) , no. S151615 (review granted 06/20/07) (this case involves whether associational standing survived Prop. 64)

• Issues: (1) Does a worker's assignment to the worker's union of a cause of action for meal and rest period violations carry with it the worker's right to sue in a representative capacity under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) or the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)? (2) Does Business and Professions Code section 17203, as amended by Proposition 64, which provides that representative claims may be brought only if the injured claimant "complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure," require that private representative claims meet the procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits?
• Court of Appeal opinion: Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.4th 39 (2007)

Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy), no. S155965 (review granted 10/10/07)

• Issues: (1) Must an employee who is suing an employer for labor law violations on behalf of himself and others under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203) bring his representative claims as a class action? (2) Must an employee who is pursuing such claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2699) bring them as a class action?
• Court of Appeal opinion: Arias v. Superior Court, 153 Cal.App.4th 777 (2007)

Comments

[cam balkon]

Thank You..