Supreme Court Oral Argument for March 1, 2022

(1) Pulliam (Tania) v. HNL Automotive, Inc., et al., S267576
#21-205; Pulliam (Tania) v. HNL Automotive, Inc., et al., S267576.(B293435; 60 Cal.App.5th 396; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC633169.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order awarding attorney fees in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Does the word “recovery” as used in the Holder Rule (16 C.F.R. § 433.2) include attorney fees?

(2) Naranjo (Gustavo) v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., S258966
#20-02  Naranjo (Gustavo) v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., S258966.  (B256232; 40 Cal.App.5th 444; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC372146.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action.  This case presents the following issues:  (1) Does a violation of Labor Code section 226.7, which requires payment of premium wages for meal and rest period violations, give rise to claims under Labor Code sections 203 and 226 when the employer does not include the premium wages in the employee’s wage statements but does include the wages earned for meal breaks?  (2) What is the applicable prejudgment interest rate for unpaid premium wages owed under Labor Code section 226.7?

(3)  People v. Padilla (Mario Salvador), S263375
#20-232  People v. Padilla (Mario Salvador), S263375.  (B297213; 50 Cal.App.5th 244; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; TA051184.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed a remanded a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.  This case presents the following issue:  When a judgment becomes final, but is later vacated, altered, or amended and a new sentence imposed, is the case no longer final for the purpose of applying an intervening ameliorative change in the law?

(4)  People v. Parker (Calvin Lamont), [Automatic Appeal], S113962
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.