The UCL Practitioner

Supreme Court takes up two cases involving UCL issues: Pineda v. Bank of America and Sullivan v. Oracle

Today, the Supreme Court took up two cases involving UCL issues. 

First, the Court granted review in Pineda v. Bank of America, no. S170758, in which the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three) held that Labor Code “section 203 penalties may not be recovered as restitution under Business and Professions Code section 17203.” Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 170 Cal.App.4th 388, 390 (2009) (discussed in this blog post).  That opinion is no longer citable as precedent. 

Second, the Court accepted the questions certified to it by the Ninth Circuit in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., no. S170577:

First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?

Second, does §17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one?

Third, does §17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA?

Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 557 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (listing certified questions).  See this blog post for more on the Ninth Circuit's withdrawn opinion, Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008).

As soon as I have time, I will add these cases to my list of pending Supreme Court cases involving UCL and/or class certification issues. 

Supreme Court holds that the CLRA does not apply to life insurance: Fairbanks v. Superior Court

The Fairbanks opinion is up.  Not surprisingly (in light of the oral argument report), the Supreme Court has held that life insurance is not a "good" or a "service" within the meaning of the CLRA. Fairbanks v. Superior Court (Farmers New World Life Ins. Co.), ___ Cal.4th ___ (Apr. 20, 2009). The opinion addresses only life insurance, not insurance generally.  Slip op. at 2 n.1. 

Supreme Court to hand down CLRA decision Monday: Fairbanks v. Superior Court

The Supreme Court just announced that it will be handing down its opinion in Fairbanks v. Superior Court (Farmers New World Life Ins. Co.), no. S157001, on Monday at 10:00 a.m.  That is the case involving whether insurance is a "good" or a "service" within the meaning of the CLRA.  Here is Harvey Rosenfield's excellent report on the oral argument. When the opinion is handed down on Monday, it will be available here:

Fairbanks v. Superior Court (Farmers New World Life Ins. Co.), ___ Cal.4th ___ (Apr. 20, 2009)

Fairbanks was argued on March 4th. Tobacco was argued on March 3rd, and the marriage cases were argued on March 5th. This is the first opinion to be handed down in that trilogy of interesting cases argued during that week in March. The Court's deadline to file the other two opinions falls in the first week of June (90 days after submission). 

Blog hiatus

The blog will be on hiatus for a few weeks, interrupted for significant events such as the Tobacco decision. Although I'm taking a brief break from blogging, I'm not taking a break from working.  You can reach me by phone at my office (415-788-4220) or by email ([email protected]).  Stay in touch!

Oral argument report #2: Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)

Many thanks to attorney Tom Kaufman for providing a second report on the Arias argument last week.  Read Tom's report after the jump.

Oral argument reports: Arias and Amalgamated

Many thanks to attorney Kelly Chen for attending the Arias and Amalgamated arguments last week and for providing very detailed reports.  Read Kelly's reports after the jump.

Report on Amalgamated and Arias arguments coming soon

I have received a report on the Amalgamated and Arias arguments as promised from attorney Kelly Chen, and a second surprise report from another blog reader. I will be getting these up as soon as I can, probably over the weekend. Check back on Monday.

"State Justices Appear to Lean Toward BofA in Giant Class Action"

The Daily Journal has an article this morning on yesterday's argument in Miller v. Bank of America.  The article begins: 

While hearing a giant class action lawsuit against Bank of America Corp. over how it charges bank fees, several California Supreme Court justices suggested Tuesday that upholding a $1 billion dollar verdict against the bank could do more harm than good to the elderly and disabled customers bringing the suit.

U.S. Supreme Court to review attorney fee multipliers: Perdue v. Kenny A.

Well, I'm already interrupting my supposed hiatus.  Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme court granted cert. in a case involving whether an attorney fee multiplier of 1.75 was appropriately awarded to counsel for the prevailing party in a civil rights action. Perdue v. Kenny A., case no. 08-970. 

The Court's "questions presented" page for the case indicates that cert. was granted on this question:

Can a reasonable attorney's fee award under a federal fee-shifting statute ever be enhanced based solely on quality of performance and results obtained when these factors already are included in the lodestar calculation?

Potentially, this case could impact fee multipliers awarded under a variety of federal fee-shifting statutes. See this post from SCOTUSBlog for more on the case, and this post from SCOTUSBlog for links to the Eleventh Circuit's opinion below (which affirmed the fee award) and some of the briefs.

Today, tomorrow and the next several weeks

This morning, the Supreme Court is hearing oral argument in Los Angeles in Miller v. Bank of America.  Right now I'm not expecting to receive a report on that argument.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court is hearing oral argument in the Amalgamated and Arias cases, also in Los Angeles.  I have a reporter lined up to cover those arguments, and hope to be able to post her report here on Thursday.

Today, I'm speaking at the SFTLA's Wage & Hour seminar in San Francisco.  The seminar runs from  noon to 2:00 p.m. at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel at 450 Powell St. (registration begins at 11:30). This event is open to plaintiffs' attorneys only.  It costs $120 ($105 for SFTLA, SCCTLA, or ACCTLA members) and offers two hours of MCLE credit.  My co-speakers are Todd Schneider, Eve Cervantez, and Jonathan Gertler.  On-site registration is still available. 

On Friday, May 1, 2009, I'm speaking at CELA's 5th Annual Advanced Wage & Hour Seminar in Los Angeles.  This event is also open to plaintiffs' attorneys only.  Click here to download the registration form. 

After the reports on Amalgamated and Arias go up on Thursday, the blog will be on hiatus for several weeks.   I will interrupt the hiatus for significant news, such as if the Tobacco decision comes down early.   You can continue to reach me by phone or email during this time. 

Broken links to Supreme Court's website

The Supreme Court's appellate case information page was down for server maintenance on Tuesday, March 31 (a court holiday in observation of Cesar Chavez Day).  Apparently, some sort of alteration was made that changed the links to all of the case information pages.  As a result, all of my links to those pages throughout my blog are now broken (as are my favorites in my web browser).  The same thing happened when the Ninth Circuit updated its website.  That update broke all of my links to Ninth Circuit opinions.  I forgave them because they also started publishing an RSS feed. 

I'm not going to be able to go back and correct all of the broken links, but I will try to gradually fix the important ones, particularly those on my pending cases page. 

"A Billion Hangs in the Balance"

Today's Recorder has this article (subscription) on Miller v. Bank of America, no. S149178, which is scheduled for oral argument on Tuesday.  Miller involves, among other things, a UCL "unlawful" prong claim.

Supreme Court denies rehearing in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum

Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, no. S153846.