Advisory Measures and the Legislature’s Power to Investigate

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. Bowen

25 Jan, 2016

Advisory Measures and the Legislature’s Power to Investigate

by

In a recent decision, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla, the California Supreme Court considered the validity of Proposition 49, which would have asked the electorate whether Congress should propose, and the legislature ratify, a federal constitutional amendment overturning the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm. (2010). The court held that the legislature’s investigative power permits it to place advisory measures on the ballot for the electorate’s consideration. For what it’s worth, we concur. The court’s order that the measure be taken off the ballot seemed dramatic enough, as the general rule is that the...

Examining the Ninth Circuit’s View on Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC: An Update on California’s Enforcement of Arbitration Clauses

Iskanian v. CLS Transportation / Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America

24 Nov, 2015

Examining the Ninth Circuit’s View on Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC: An Update on California’s Enforcement of Arbitration Clauses

by

In Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00436-GPC-KSC, 2015 WL 5667912 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held last month in a 2–1 decision that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348, 359 (2014), which held, among other things, that an employer’s arbitration agreement cannot require employees to waive representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698–2699.5 (2004), as a condition of employment. Because both opinions are extensive and complex—Iskanian’s three opinions total...

Oral Arguments Preview: People v. Safety National Casualty Insurance Co.

People v. Safety National Casualty Insurance Co.

3 Nov, 2015

Oral Arguments Preview: People v. Safety National Casualty Insurance Co.

by

Today, the Supreme Court of California will hear oral arguments in People v. Safety National Casualty Insurance Co.  That case involves the interplay between California Penal Code (the “Code”) sections 977 and 1305, and whether a defendant’s failure to appear at a scheduled court proceeding can be the basis for an order of bail forfeiture.  Ultimately, the court’s decision will likely hinge on exactly what constitutes a required hearing, while balancing statutory requirements against criminal defendant’s due process and fair trial rights. Section 977 requires a felony defendant to appear at certain court proceedings unless he or she signs a waiver...

Upcoming Oral Argument: Can the California Public Utilities Commission Regulate Local Government User Fees through Utility Bills?

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District v. CPUC

2 Nov, 2015

Upcoming Oral Argument: Can the California Public Utilities Commission Regulate Local Government User Fees through Utility Bills?

by

On November 3, 2015, the Supreme Court of California will hear arguments in Monterey Peninsula Water Management District v. CPUC. The case will address whether the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) has the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through a public utility’s bills to ratepayers. The court’s decision in this case will affect government entities’ autonomy in assessing taxes and fees through utility bills and the CPUC’s power to review and determine whether such taxes are reasonable to ratepayers. The CPUC has the authority to regulate public utility...

Opinion Analysis: People v. Seumanu

People v. Seumanu

27 Aug, 2015

Opinion Analysis: People v. Seumanu

by

Last year a federal district court judge ruled in Jones v. Chappell that the long delays from conviction to execution render California’s death penalty cruel and unusual punishment. An appeal of that ruling is now pending before the Ninth Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for this coming Monday, August 31. In People v. Seumanu, the California Supreme Court was presented with the first so-called “Jones claim” in a California court—that is, a claim that long delays result in unconstitutionally arbitrary enforcement of capital punishment. (Id. at pp. 91­-92.) In the 2001 case of People v. Anderson, the court had rejected...

Opinion Analysis: Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.

10 Aug, 2015

Opinion Analysis: Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC

by

The California Supreme Court has continued its dialogue with the U.S. Supreme Court about arbitration agreements in a recent ruling that affirmed the use of California unconscionability law to determine the validity of arbitration agreements, but declined to invalidate the agreement before it. In the course of this years-long dialogue, the California Supreme Court has tended to apply principles of California law to invalidate arbitration provisions, while the U.S. Supreme Court has tended to invoke the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to uphold arbitration provisions. Prior Decisions Over thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ban on arbitration imposed...

Opinion Analysis: People v. Banks

People v. Banks

14 Jul, 2015

Opinion Analysis: People v. Banks

by

In the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two important decisions about whether and when a defendant can get the death penalty for felony murder when the defendant did not personally kill or intend to kill. In Enmund v. Florida (1982), the Court held that a man who served as the getaway driver for a robbery, and who was not present when the unplanned killing occurred, was ineligible for the death penalty. Five years later in Tison v. Arizona (1987), the Court upheld a death sentence for two men who conducted an armed breakout of two convicted murderers after...

SCOCA grants review in pivotal anti-SLAPP case

Baral v. Schnitt

29 May, 2015

SCOCA grants review in pivotal anti-SLAPP case

by

On May 13, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted review in Baral v. Schnitt to resolve the divide among lower courts regarding whether anti-SLAPP motions can strike so-called “mixed” causes of action. In 2003, Defendant David Schnitt formed a new business entity, IQ BackOffice (“IQ”). Schnitt operated the company as a single member single manager LLC from its inception until 2010, when the company was put up for sale. In 2005, Plaintiff Robert Baral made an investment in IQ and became an economic interest holder. At Baral’s request, his son was made a bookkeeper at IQ. In preparation for the...

Arbitrators may decide Pitchess motions

Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz

13 May, 2015

Arbitrators may decide Pitchess motions

by

A recent California Supreme Court decision raises questions about the extent to which nonjudicial officers should decide disclosure questions. In Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz, the court ruled that an arbitrator deciding an appeal from disciplinary action against a peace officer could inspect confidential personnel records of other peace officers and determine whether they should be disclosed in the arbitration proceeding. The statutes in question establish a qualified privilege for peace officer personnel records and prescribe a procedure for determining whether they should be disclosed, commonly called Pitchess rights. Under the facts of Pitchess v. Superior Court, Peter Pitchess...

Opinion Analysis: Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District

Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District

11 May, 2015

Opinion Analysis: Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District

by

The California Supreme Court has overturned what many had thought was a well-settled rule, and determined that prevailing defendants in cases under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) are not automatically entitled to their costs of suit. Now, defendants must satisfy the Christiansburg standard, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, for recovery of attorney’s fees by prevailing defendants. That standard requires a showing that the action was objectively without foundation when brought, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. This has long been the accepted standard for an...

Follow Us:

Chief Justice Guerrero's tenure

Cases & Categories

About Us

SCOCAblog is a publication brought to you by the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law and the UC Law Journal. Focused on substantive coverage of the Supreme Court of California, we analyze the court and its justices, cases and issues before the court, and news about California's judicial branch. Our contributors include former justices of the court, academics, and advocates experienced in appellate practice before the state high court.

Sign Up for Email Updates

Contributors