Today's Supreme Court opinions: Murphy v. Kenneth Cole and Fireside Bank v. Superior Court

When the Supreme Court hands down its two eagerly-anticipated opinions today at 10:00 a.m., they will be available at these links:

• Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, ___ Cal.4th ___ (Apr. 16, 2007)
• Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, ___ Cal.4th ___ (Apr. 16, 2007)

My schedule takes me away from my computer this morning, but I anticipate putting up summaries of the decisions late in the day (probably early evening; possibly tomorrow morning). My colleague, Jessica Grant, has graciously signed on to write a summary of Murphy v. Kenneth Cole for posting here. Meanwhile, here is some background on each case:

• For extreme class action enthusiasts, Fireside Bank v. Superior Court will address "one-way intervention," a concept I've explained in detail before. The Court of Appeal's opinion is: Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, 133 Cal.App.4th 742 (2005) (Sixth Appellate District). Two blog readers kindly provided summaries of the Supreme Court argument (summary 1) (summary 2).

• In Murphy v. Kenneth Cole, the Supreme Court will address whether the extra hour of pay mandated by Labor Code section 226.7 for missed meal periods and rest breaks is a "wage," subject to a three-year statute of limitations, or a "penalty," subject to a one-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal's opinion is: Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 728 (2005) (First Appellate District, Division One). My lengthy summary of the oral argument is available here, and some of the briefs can be found here.

Please feel free to post your thoughts on the opinions in the comments.