Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Tomas Vebr was employed by a painting contractor which contracted with defendants Gary and Georgia Culp to paint the interior of their home. An hour into working in the Culps’ home, Vebr fell 12 to 15 feet from an extension ladder provided by the painting contractor and was injured. Vebr sued the Culps for negligence and premises liability based on allegations that his fellow painters were negligent. The trial court granted the Culps’ motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed: the undisputed facts showed the cause of Vebr’s fall was a mystery. There was no evidence showing what had occurred or that Vebr was free from negligence himself. On this record, there was no reasonable and logical inference anyone else present in the residence at the time of the accident was negligent. “Someone might have been negligent, but we do not and likely never will know whether that was the case. The trial court did not err by concluding that the evidence before the court did not show all three conditions of the res ipsa loquitur presumption were satisfied.” View "Vebr v. Culp" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed suit claiming that she suffered a workplace injury to her psyche after she sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of her employment as a registered nurse. Petitioner retained a qualified medical expert at her own expense under Labor Code section 4064, subdivision (d). Section 4064, subidvision (d) provides: "All comprehensive medical evaluations obtained by any party shall be admissible in any proceeding before the appeals board except as provided in Section 4060, 4061, 4062, 4062.1, or 4062.2." In this case, the court concluded that the admission of the medical evaluation petitioner obtained is barred by section 4061, subdivision (i). Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the Board concluding that the report was not admissible. View "Batten v. WCAB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against his employer, alleging various Labor Code violations and unfair business practice. Plaintiff had entered into an agreement with his employer, providing that all disputes arising out of his employment would be resolved by arbitration, and the agreement prohibited class arbitration. The trial court denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration under the test laid out in Gentry v. Superior Court. After the trial court's ruling, the Supreme Court held, in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, that Gentry’s rule against employment class waivers was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The court concluded, however, that this matter is not subject to the FAA and that Gentry’s holding has not been overturned under California law in situations where the FAA does not apply. Accordingly, the court found that the agreement’s class waiver provision is unenforceable. Neither party asserts that class arbitration is appropriate. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Garrido v. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was hired by Touchstone as an actress to appear in the television series "Desperate Housewives." Plaintiff filed suit against Touchstone under Labor Code section 6310, alleging that she was terminated in retaliation for her complaint about a battery allegedly committed on her by the show's creator, Marc Cherry. Plaintiff claimed that after she attempted to question Cherry about the script, he struck her in response. The trial court sustained Touchstone's demurrer to the complaint. The court reversed the judgment, concluding that plaintiff was not required to exhaust her administrative remedies under Labor Code sections 98.7 and 6312 by filing a claim with the Labor Commission. View "Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Prod." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of Aurora, filed a wage and hour suit alleging, among other things, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, that Aurora’s uniform practices and de facto policies routinely denied nursing staff employees meal and rest periods required by California law. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, finding a lack of “commonality” among the subclasses. However, the court concluded that the trial court relied on improper criteria and erroneous legal assumptions in denying certification. While the court believes that plaintiffs’ theory of liability presents a common question well-suited for class treatment, it is unclear what effect, if any, individual issues, such as damages, will have on the manageability of the case. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the matter for further consideration. View "Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against SCIS, alleging that it violated California meal and rest break laws and wage laws. The trial court concluded that plaintiff's claims are preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713(b)(1). The court reversed and remanded, concluding that it is pure speculation and conjecture that requiring SCIS to provide meal and rest breaks consistent with California labor and employment law would have any relation to airline prices, routes, or services. The court did not reach the merits of whether class certification is appropriate or whether SCIS complied with state laws. View "Valencia v. SCIS Air Security Corp." on Justia Law

Charlene Deluca filed a complaint alleging defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and Longs Drug Stores California, LLC (CVS), had a corporate policy of automatically terminating employees who do not work any hours for 45 consecutive days. Deluca sought injunctive relief to challenge the policy, which she argued discriminated against qualified individuals with disabilities in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Deluca, an employee of Longs, was not disabled, nor had she been terminated under the alleged 45-day policy. CVS demurred to Deluca’s complaint. The trial court sustained CVS’s demurrer based on Deluca’s lack of standing and dismissed her individually without leave to amend, but granted 90 days’ leave to amend for Deluca to find a substitute plaintiff and granted her motion to compel discovery of the names and contact information of current and former CVS employees. CVS filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s ruling. The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on the circumstances under which a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief on behalf of a class of which plaintiff was not a member, could obtain precertification discovery to seek out a legitimate plaintiff to support her case. The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ of mandate, and found that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the proposed precertification discovery. View "CVS Pharmacy v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Miranda is a former employee of Anderson Enterprises; Hansen is the company’s general manager. During his employment, Miranda signed an “Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy” by which agreed to arbitrate all employment claims and waived the right to arbitrate claims as a class or collective action. In 2013, Miranda filed a purported class action lawsuit, asserting wage and hour claims, including a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Lab. Code, 2698) claim. The trial court found the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable, dismissed the class and representative claims without prejudice based on the arbitration agreement’s waiver, directed Miranda to arbitrate his individual claims, and stayed the superior court proceedings pending completion of arbitration of the individual claims. The court of appeal reversed as to the representative PAGA claim, based on a subsequently-issued California Supreme Court opinion, Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (2014), under which the waiver is unenforceable. The court noted that Miranda had represented that he would not pursue his individual claims through arbitration and concluded that the PAGA ruling was, therefore, appealable. View "Miranda v. Anderson Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Mehusa, her former employer, for unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, and violation of California's Equal Pay Act, Labor Code 1197.5. After plaintiff prevailed on her Equal Pay Act claim and defendant prevailed on plaintiff's overtime and wage claims, the trial court awarded plaintiff her attorney fees and defendant its attorney fees and costs. The trial court offset the attorney fees awards for a net award to plaintiff of $3,709.19. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that defendant was a prevailing party on plaintiff’s wage claim and awarding defendant attorney fees and costs under section 218.5. The court held in the published portion of this opinion that when there are two fee shifting statutes in separate causes of action, there can be a prevailing party for one cause of action and a different prevailing party for the other cause of action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sharif v. Mehusa, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a professional basketball team in the NBA, filed an unverified petition for a writ of review against the Appeals Boards and others, challenging what it refers to as the Appeals Board's jurisdiction over a claim for accumulated injuries by Durand Macklin, a former professional basketball player in the NBA, for cumulative injuries. Petitioner contends that, in view of Macklin's contact with California, application of California workers' compensation law in this case would not be reasonable and thus would be a denial of due process. The court held that Labor Code section 5954 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1069 require verification of a petition to review a decision of the Appeals Board. After oral argument, the court granted petitioner's request to file a verified petition. On the merits, the court held that California has a legitimate interest in an industrial injury when the applicant was employed by a California corporation and participated in other games and practices in California for non-California NBA teams, during the period of exposure causing cumulative injury. Therefore, subjecting petitioner to California workers' compensation law is reasonable and not a denial of due process. The court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Board. View "N.Y. Knickerbockers v. WCAB" on Justia Law