The UCL Practitioner

MCLE program: "Kwikset and Beyond: Advanced Topics in §17200 Practice"

In March, I will have the pleasure of joining Will Stern and Justice Victoria Chaney of the Second District Court of Appeal as a panelist for the Rutter Group's annual 17200 program. This year, the program is called "Kwikset and Beyond: Advanced Topics in §17200 Practice."

We will be presenting live in San Francisco at the Hotel Nikko on March 6 and in Los Angeles at the Marriott Downtown on March 8.  Video replays will be presented in Sherman Oaks on March 21, San Diego on March 22, and Costa Mesa on March 27.  Registration will open at 5:30 p.m. on each of these dates, and the program will run from 6:00-9:15 p.m.  The cost is $160 for three hours of MCLE credit (including 0.5 hours of ethics). 

I hope you will sign up to attend.  It should be a very interesting program.  More information is available at this link. 

Brinker update

I have updated my Brinker page to include the additional briefing filed since the case was argued on November 8, 2011.   Links to the briefs also appear at the end of this post.

Contrary to the suggestion of some news reports, the Court did not order this briefing sua sponte.

Rather, in late November, the California Employment Law Council (an employer-side organization) filed an application for leave to file a post-argument amicus curiae brief. 

Post-argument briefing is highly unusual.  The purported justification for CELC's application was Justice Baxter's question, posed to Brinker's counsel during the argument, about whether any of the Court's forthcoming rulings should apply prospectively only (rather than retrospectively in accordance with the general rule).  The real point of the application could only have been to create an opportunity to re-argue the merits of the meal period timing issue, which the attorneys for CELC apparently believed Brinker was losing.

The Supreme Court granted this application in an order filed on December 2, 2011.  The order granting the application also gave the parties leave to answer if they chose to do so.  Our answer to CELC's post-argument brief was filed on January 3, 2012 (after the Court denied our application for an extension of the deadline), and Brinker's was filed a day later, on January 4, 2012.  Simultaneous replies were filed on January 13, 2012. 

When the Court granted CELC's application, it also issued an order vacating submission of the cause pursuant to Rule of Court 8.524(h)(1).  This order stated that the cause would be resubmitted on January 13, 2012.  No further order was issued on that date, so presumably the resubmission occurred automatically pursuant to this earlier order. 

This re-starts the Court's 90-day period to hand down its opinion.  The Court now has until approximately April 12, 2012 to rule (instead of early February, when the opinion would have been due otherwise).  Of course, it may rule earlier. 

Meanwhile, on December 16, 2011, Brinker applied for leave to file a supplemental brief pursuant to Rule of Court 8.520(d) to bring a federal district judge's order to the Court's attention.  This again read primarily as an attempt to re-argue the merits of the case.  The Court granted the application. 

Here are links to the additional briefs:

• Application for Leave to File and Post-Argument Amicus Curiae Brief of California Employment Law Council (filed 12/02/11) (in support of the employer)
• Real Parties' Opposition to Application of California Employment Law Council to File Post-Argument Amicus Brief (filed 12/02/11)
• Supplemental Brief on Nguyen v. Baxter Healthcare (filed by Brinker 12/20/11)
• Real Parties' Answer to California Employment Law Council's Post-Argument Amicus Brief (filed 01/03/12)
• Brinker's Answer to California Employment Law Council's Post-Argument Amicus Brief (filed 01/04/12)
• Real Parties' Reply to Brinker's Answer to California Employment Law Council's Post-Argument Amicus Brief (filed 01/13/12)
• Brinker's Reply to Real Parties' Answer to California Employment Law Council's Post-Argument Amicus Brief (filed 01/13/12)

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is hiring in San Francisco

The newly-constituted federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is hiring.  Positions are available in San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Washington:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is looking for rigorous, innovative thinkers to shape policy and advance our consumer protection mission. We will be hiring dedicated, talented public servants in a wide array of areas and with many different levels of experience. We are currently looking for great candidates for the positions listed below. Click on any job grade to find out if it is the right opportunity for you. 

The deadline to apply is January 23, 2012.  More information is available here (click through to the job descriptions).

This morning I am attending the mid-Winter meeting of the Executive Committee of the State Bar's Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section, of which I am currently the Secretary.  Save the date of November 1, 2012 October 25, 2012 for our annual Golden State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Institute, which will take place in San Fransisco again this year.

I have been very busy at work lately, but soon I will have an update on Brinker (with copies of the most recent briefs) and reports on Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2012) and Collins v. eMachines, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Nov. 28, 2011; pub. ord. Dec. 22, 2011; modified Dec. 28, 2011).