At its January 10 conference, the Supreme Court granted review in two civil cases and depublished one civil opinion. It also issued 16 grant-and-hold orders in criminal cases, 13 criminal or habeas corpus case grant-and-transfer orders, and an order to show cause in another habeas case, and it depublished a criminal opinion and responded favorably to two clemency recommendation requests by the Governor.
Here’s a quick look at the three civil cases with, for the two review-granted cases, the issue presented as stated by the court or its staff.
Christensen v. Lightbourne: Review granted.
(1) Should court-ordered child support payments for children living outside the home be considered income available to children in the home in determining eligibility for CalWORKs aid? (2) When garnished child support is the direct or indirect income of children outside the home who are receiving CalWORKs aid, does the state violate Welfare and Institutions Code section 11005.5 when it allows the garnished income to also be considered in determining the amount of aid to the paying family?
In a published opinion, the First District, Division Two, Court of Appeal reversed the superior court and ruled against the CalWORKs applicant, holding child support payments do count as income for the family that isn’t receiving the payments. The appellate court deferred to the California Department of Social Services’ interpretation of CalWORKs statutes and its own regulations that “court-ordered child support counts as income to the payer’s family in determining the family’s CalWORKs eligibility and aid amount.”
Melendez v. San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC (aka the San Francisco Giants): Review granted.
The court limited review to the issue whether plaintiffs’ statutory wage claim under Labor Code section 201 requires the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, and is therefore preempted by section 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act.
The defendant San Francisco Giants prevailed in the First District, Division Three, Court of Appeal’s published opinion, one of the team’s few wins last season. The superior court denied the Giants’ motion to compel arbitration in a wage dispute with one of the team’s security guards, but the appellate court held “arbitration is required by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.”
Ly v. County of Fresno: Petition for review denied; opinion depublished.
In an opinion that is now no longer citable, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held an employment discrimination/harassment/retaliation lawsuit was barred by the res judicata effect of a decision by administrative law judges in a simultaneous worker’s compensation proceeding.
