At its conference yesterday, the Supreme Court straight-granted review in four cases, three of them with unpublished Court of Appeal opinions. With the court’s five-month-long vacancy, it was yet another conference with just six justices participating.
Review granted: arbitration
The court granted review in Barbosa v. Sierra Pacific Orthopaedic Center Medical Group, concerning whether a class action alleging various labor violations must be arbitrated. In an unpublished opinion, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration and to enforce a class litigation waiver.
The Fifth District held that “Labor Code section 229 permits a dispute as to wages to proceed in court when the [Federal Arbitration Act] does not apply via preemption, notwithstanding an explicit agreement the FAA would otherwise govern a dispute” and require arbitration. Section 229 generally provides that actions “for the collection of due and unpaid wages claimed by an individual may be maintained without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate.”
Although finding the statute “discriminat[es] on its face against arbitration,” which would normally violate the FAA, the appellate court concluded the FAA was inapplicable because the FAA applies only to contracts involving interstate commerce and it agreed with the superior court that “there was no preemption because [the plaintiff’s employment had] ‘little relationship to interstate commerce[.]’ ” It disagreed with the First District, Division Two, decision in Barrera v. Apple American Group LLC (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 63 and the Second District, Division Four, opinion in Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337. There was no petition for review in Barrera or Victrola 89.
Barbosa already has its own grant-and-hold. (See below.)
There were four requests to publish the opinion, all of which the Fifth District denied, as did the Supreme Court in its order granting review. The Fifth District said its opinion did not meet the rule 8.1105(c) criteria for publication, even though subdivision (c)(5) says an opinion “should” be published if it “creates an apparent conflict in the law.”
Review granted: commissioners ruling at bail review hearings
The court agreed to hear Turcios v. Superior Court. The Second District, Division Five, in an unpublished opinion, rejected an argument that “presiding over a bail review hearing is not one of the ‘subordinate judicial duties’ that commissioners are constitutionally permitted to perform, absent a stipulation by the parties.” The decision followed a commissioner’s denial of the writ petitioner’s request for release or bail pending a petition to revoke his postrelease community supervision.
Article VI, section 22, of the California Constitution authorizes trial courts to appoint “officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties.”
Division Five noted that the writ petition “is likely moot.”
Review granted: attorney fees for self-represented litigants
The court also granted review in Honchariw v. PMF CA REIT, LLC. A Second District, Division Three, partially published opinion reversed a $251,200 contractual attorney fee award to plaintiffs who successfully sued to recoup “default” interest payments they made on a mortgage loan. One plaintiff — a semi-retired attorney — represented himself and his wife in the action.
Disagreeing with the Second District, Division Seven, decision in Rickley v. Goodfriend (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1528 and with reasoning in the Fourth District, Division One, opinion in Gogal v. Deng (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1161, Division Three held that, “because plaintiffs were self-represented, Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 . . . precluded an award to them of attorney fees.” Division Three’s rationale was, “Because the spouses did have a common interest—that is, because their interests were ‘joint and indivisible’ as co-members of the marital community [citation]—the community as an entity was effectively self-represented.”
The Supreme Court denied review and a depublication request in Rickley. There was no petition for review in Gogal. (Another Gogal v. Deng case is pending on review. (See here.))
Review granted: Twitter misuse of users’ information
The court will also hear Yeh v. Twitter, Inc. In an unpublished opinion, the First District, Division Five, affirmed the dismissal on demurrer of a class action that alleged Twitter improperly used its registered users’ email addresses and telephone numbers for marketing purposes without their permission.
Division Five held the plaintiff had failed to plead causes of action for breach of contract, implied contract, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment.
Arbitration grant-and-hold
Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services is a grant-and-hold for Barbosa v. Sierra Pacific Orthopaedic Center Medical Group (see above).
Unlike the Barbosa court, the Second District, Division Eight, in its published Tuufuli opinion, applied the Federal Arbitration Act and held arbitration was required regardless of whether the dispute involved interstate commerce. “[T]he FAA governs the arbitration agreement,” Division Eight concluded, “because the parties agreed that it would.”
DMV hearing grant-and-hold
Clapp v. Department of Motor Vehicles is a grant-and-hold for Romane v. Department of Motor Vehicles (see here), in which the court limited the issue to, “Under what circumstances does an administrative per se [APS] hearing officer’s relationship with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) violate a driver’s due process right to an impartial adjudicator by creating an unacceptable risk of bias during a DMV driver’s license suspension hearing?”
In Clapp, a Second District, Division Three, unpublished opinion reinstated a driver’s license suspension, holding that the DMV hearing officer in the case “did not act as an advocate but rather collected, developed, and admitted the evidence without violating defendant’s due process rights.”
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were two criminal case grant-and-holds: one more waiting for a decision in People v. Morris (see here), which was argued in February; and one more on hold for People v. Eaton (see here).
