The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, August 17, 2016. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Review Granted
None.
Case Transferred After Briefing
Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Hospital, S225205 – Case Transferred after Review Granted – August 17, 2016
After granting review and full briefing, the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of the enactment of Statutes 2015, chapter 505 (Sen. Bill No. 327 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.)).
The case presents the following questions: (1) Is the health care industry meal period waiver provision in section 11(D) of Industrial Wage Commission Order No. 5-2001 invalid under Labor Code section 512, subdivision (a)? (2) Should the decision of the Court of Appeal partially invalidating the Wage Order be applied retroactively?
In a published decision, Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 285, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, held: (1) the Industrial Welfare Commission wage order for health care employees is invalid to the extent it permits employees to waive their second meal period; (2) this applied retroactively; (3) the employee’s timecards and wage statements were properly authenticated.
Certified Question of State Law Accepted
Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, S234969 – Request for Answer to Question of State Law Granted – August 17, 2016
The Supreme Court granted the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ request to answer the following certified question: Whether “the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692 (1946) and Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 1984), appl[ies] to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197.”
The question arises in a case alleging the defendant had violated the Labor Code when it failed to pay its employees for the period of time between clocking-out and closing the retail space. (Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (C.D. Cal. March 7, 2014), 2014 WL 1004098 [nonpub. opn.].)
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
People for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs, S234996 – Depublished Court of Appeal Opinion – August 17, 2016
People for Proper Planning (PPP), a California non-profit organization, appealed the denial of its petition for writ of mandate. PPP took issue with the City of Palm Spring’s elimination of minimal density requirements for residential development. PPP also filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief which sought to set aside the city’s plan. The trial court denied PPP’s challenge.
The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, held in a published decision, People for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 640, that (1) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions must be narrowly construed when they are relied on by a government agency; (2) a party challenging the exemption has the burden of producing evidence supporting an exception. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to grant PPP’s petition for writ of mandate.
