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, April 29, 2015. 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. As we have already noted, the Court agreed this week to answer two questions of state law pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s request.
Review Granted
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, S224853 – Review Granted – April 29, 2015
This case presents the following issues: (1) Do Labor Code, § 226.7, and Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 4-2001 require that employees be relieved of all duties during rest breaks? (2) Are security guards who remain on call during rest breaks performing work during that time under the analysis of Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 833?
Plaintiff and other former security guards employed by defendant allege that defendant failed to provide rest periods in accordance with California law. Specifically, they allege that defendant required its security guards to remain on-call during their breaks, thereby allegedly failing to relieve the security guards of all their duties during rest breaks. The trial court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication finding that an employer must relieve its employees of all duties during rest breaks, including the obligation to remain on-call and their motion for class certification.
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, reversed in a published opinion, Augustus v. ABM Security Services (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1065. The court noted that the summary adjudication and summary judgment orders depend on the notion that California law requires employers to relieve their workers of all duties during rest breaks. The Court of Appeal rejected this notion, holding that Labor Code section 226.7 does not require that an employee be relieved of all of his or her duties and instead requires only that the employee not be required to work. According to the Court of Appeal, remaining on-call itself does not constitute performing work.
[Note: Horvitz & Levy submitted an Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant]
Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of Redding, S224779 – Review Granted – April 29, 2015
The Court limited review to the following issues: (1) Is a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) transferred from the city utility to the city general fund a “tax” under Proposition 26 (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (1)(e))? (2) Does the exception for “reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product” apply to the PILOT (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (1)(e)(2))? (3) Does the PILOT predate Proposition 26?
In 1978 voters adopted Proposition 13 requiring any “special taxes” for cities, counties, and special districts to be approved by a two-thirds vote. Throughout the years, several other propositions, including Proposition 26, were passed to fine tune the two-thirds vote requirement. This led to the addition of article XII C requiring that new taxes imposed by a local government be subject to a two-thirds vote by the electorate. Additionally, Proposition 26 defined a tax to be “any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government.”
The City of Redding annually conducts a budget transfer from the Redding Electrical Utility to Redding’s general fund. Functionally, this transfer (PILOT) is equivalent to the ad valorem tax the Utility would be required to pay if privately owned. The PILOT is not set by ordinance, but is part of the Redding biennial budget. Plaintiffs challenge the PILOT, claiming that it constitutes a tax for which article XII C requires a vote by two-thirds of the electorate. Redding, however, argues that the PILOT is not a tax and, even if it were, it would be grandfathered-in because it precedes the adoption of Proposition 26. The trial court found the PILOT predated Proposition 26 and therefore was not subject to the two-thirds vote requirement.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed in a published decision, Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of Redding (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 402, holding the PILOT was not grandfathered-in because it preceded Proposition 26’s adoption. Additionally, The court ruled the PILOT was a tax under Proposition 26 unless Redding is able to prove the money collected was necessary to cover the reasonable costs to the city to provide electric service. According to the court, this factual question regarding reasonableness was not properly determined by the trial court and therefore remanded.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None in a civil case. But three justices dissented from the denial of review in a criminal case, as we noted here.
Depublished
None.
