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, June 22, 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
Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., S233983 – Review Granted – June 22, 2016
This case presents the following question: Must an unnamed class member intervene in the litigation in order to have standing to appeal? (See Eggert v. Pac. States S. & L. Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 199.)
After a bench trial in a class action against a retailer under the Song–Beverly Credit Card Act, class representatives requested that the court order an attorney fees award of one quarter of the total maximum fund created by the judgment to be payable to class counsel from the fund. The defendant agreed not to contest that request. Muller, a class member, requested the court order notice of the attorney fee motion be sent to all class members. The court denied Muller’s request, granted the attorney fee motion, and entered judgment. Muller appealed from the judgment. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held in a published decision, Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 651, that the customer who was not a class representative was not a “party of record,” and thus could not appeal.
Cushfield Maintenance West v. Superior Court (Hall), S234604 – Review Granted & Held – June 22, 2016
The court granted review and deferred further action pending disposition of Williams v. Superior Court, S227228, which raises the issues: (1) Is the plaintiff in a representative action under the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) entitled to discovery of the names and contact information of other “aggrieved employees” at the beginning of the proceeding or is the plaintiff first required to show good cause in order to have access to such information? (2) In ruling on such a request for employee contact information, should the trial court first determine whether the employees have a protectable privacy interest and, if so, balance that privacy interest against competing or countervailing interests, or is a protectable privacy interest assumed? (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1; Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360.)
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
