View case information here.

10:00 A.M.

(1)  OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (Ken) (Julie A. Su, as Labor Commissioner, etc., Intervener), S244630
View Argument 
Opinion filed 8-29-19
This case presents the following issues:  (1) Was the arbitration remedy at issue in this case sufficiently “affordable and accessible” within the meaning of Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109 to require the company’s employees to forego the right to an administrative Berman hearing (Lab. Code, § 98 et seq.) on wage claims?  (2) Did the employer waive its right to bypass the Berman hearing by waiting until the morning of that hearing, serving a demand for arbitration, and refusing to participate in the hearing? 

2:00 P.M.

(2)  Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (California Coastal Commission, Real Party in Interest), S238563
View Argument 
Opinion filed 8-19-19
This case presents the following issues:  (1) Is the enactment of a zoning ordinance categorically a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)?  (2) Is the enactment of a zoning ordinance allowing the operation of medical marijuana cooperatives in certain areas the type of activity that may cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment? 

(3)  Voris (Brett) v. Lampert (Greg), S241812
View Argument 
Opinion filed 8-15-19
This case presents the following issue:  Is conversion of earned but unpaid wages a valid cause of action?

(4)  Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, S239510
View Argument 
Opinion filed 8-29-19
#17-99  Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, S239510.  (9th Cir. No. 14-56017; 845 F.3d 993; Central District of California; 2:13-cv-05863-GW-E.)  Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  As restated by the court, the questions presented are:  (1) Is California’s common law notice-prejudice rule a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis?  (2) If the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis, can the notice-prejudice  rule apply to the consent provision in this case? 

(5)  In re Masters (Jarvis J.) on Habeas Corpus [related to an underlying Automatic Appeal], S130495
View Argument 
Opinion filed 8-12-19
#07-35  In re Masters (Jarvis J.) on Habeas Corpus [related to an underlying Automatic Appeal], S130495.  Original proceeding.  In this case, which is related to the automatic appeal in People v. Masters, S016883, the court issued an order to show cause limited to claims of prosecutorial misconduct and recantation by a witness at the penalty phase of trial.