Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinions in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation and In re Manriquez. (Briefs here; oral argument videos here and here.) These are the last two undecided cases from the early-May calendar.
As asked by the Ninth Circuit, the issue in Troester is whether “the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692 (1946) and Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 1984), appl[ies] to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197.” From the Ninth Circuit’s perspective, it’s an unusual request. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in this case.] (Second District, Division Eight, Court of Appeal Justice Elizabeth Grimes is the pro tem.)
Manriquez is a habeas corpus proceeding initiated by a death row prisoner. The Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted on grounds of juror misconduct. (Fifth District Justice Donald Franson, Jr., is the pro tem.)
The opinions can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.
