Pending California Supreme Court cases list updated

I've updated my list of pending California Supreme Court cases relevant to the areas of practice covered by this blog. 

The only new cases added to the list are five more "grant and holds" involving arbitration issues and stayed pending resolution of Sanchez or Iskanian.  Removing all the "grant and hold" cases from the list, here's what's pending.  (If I've missed any, please drop me an email.) 

There are two class certification cases (Ayala and Duran); three arbitration-related cases (Sonic-Calabasas, Sanchez, and Iskanian); one preemption case (Pac Anchor); and one "unfair" prong case (Cipro): 

Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, No. S206874 (review granted 01/30/13)

• Issue: This case presents questions concerning the determination of whethercommon issues predominate in a proposed class action relating to claimsthat turn on whether members of the putative class are independentcontractors or employees.
• Court of Appeal Opinion:  Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 210 Cal.App.4th 77 (2012)

Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, No. S204032 (review granted 09/19/12)

• Issues: (1) Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court(2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waiversin the context of non-waivable labor law rights? (2) Does the highcourt's decision permit arbitration agreements to override the statutoryright to bring representative claims under the Labor Code PrivateAttorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.)? (3) Diddefendant waive its right to compel arbitration?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 206 Cal.App.4th 949 (2012)

Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association, no. S200923 (review granted 05/16/12)

• Issue: This case presents issues concerning thecertification of class actions in wage and hour misclassificationlitigation and the use of representative testimony and statisticalevidence at trial of such a class action.
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Duran v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n., 203 Cal.App.4th 212 (2012)
• Briefs: available at this link

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., no. S199119 (review granted 03/21/12)

• Issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion(2011) 563 U. S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740, preempt state law rulesinvalidating mandatory arbitration provisions in a consumer contract asprocedurally and substantively unconscionable?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, 201 Cal.App.4th 74 (2011)

In re Cipro Cases I & II, no. S198616 (review granted 02/15/12)

• Issue: May a suit under the Cartwright AntitrustAct (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720 et seq.) be brought to challenge"reverse exclusionary payments" made by pharmaceutical manufacturers tosettle patent litigation with generic drug producers and prolong thelife of the patents in question? 
• Court of Appeal Opinion: In re Cipro Cases I & II, 200 Cal.App.4th 442 (2011)

People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., no. S194388 (review granted 08/10/11)

• Issue: Is an action under the Unfair CompetitionLaw (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) that is based on a truckingcompany's alleged violation of state labor and insurance laws "relatedto the price, route, or service" of the company and, therefore,preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of1994 (49 U.S.C. § 14501)?
• Court of Appeal Opinion: People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., 195 Cal.App.4th 765 (May 18, 2011)

Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, no. S174475 (review granted 09/09/09)

• Issues:  (1) Can a mandatoryemployment arbitration agreement be enforced prior to the conclusion ofan administrative proceeding conducted by the Labor Commissionerconcerning an employee's statutory wage claim? (2) Was the LaborCommissioner's jurisdiction over employee's statutory wage claimdivested by the Federal Arbitration Act under Preston v. Ferrer (2008) __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 978, 169 L.Ed.2d 917?
• Supreme Court Opinion:  Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moren0, 59 Cal.4th  (Feb. 24, 2011) 
• U.S. Supreme Court Order (10/31/11):  The petitionfor writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and thecase is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for furtherconsideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. ___ (Apr. 27, 2011).
• Supreme Court Order (01/11/12): In light of theUnited States Supreme Court's order vacating our judgment in theabove-entitled case and remanding the cause to this court "for furtherconsideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC. v. Concepcion,563 U.S. __ (2011) [131 S.Ct. 1740]," the parties are requested tobrief the significance of that case. The parties are requested to fileand serve simultaneous briefs by February 10, 2012, and may file andserve reply briefs by February 24, 2012.