Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinions in OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho and Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company. Both were argued on the June calendar. (Briefs here; oral argument videos here.)
After tomorrow, there will be just one more case in the pipeline — ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court. That opinion is not due until September 23 because court-ordered supplemental briefing postponed the case’s submission. Other than that, there might not be any opinions for a month or two, which is a normal drought following the court’s argument-less summer. The next opinion after ZB might well be Patterson v. Padilla, in which the court is rushing to decide a challenge to California’s new law seeking to force presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.
The questions presented in OTO are: (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 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? The court granted review in November 2017.
At the Ninth Circuit’s request, Pitzer College will decide these issues, as restated by the Supreme Court: (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? The court agreed in March 2017 to answer the questions.
The opinions can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.
