News & Analysis as of

CA Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation

K&L Gates LLP

California Employers Granted Slight Reprieve From Onerous Arbitration Fee Payment Requirements

K&L Gates LLP on

On 11 August 2025, California employers scored some relief from a rigidly applied arbitration statute with the California Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (Hohenshelt)....more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Minimum Wage Good Faith Defense and Labor Commissioner Appeal Scope

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The California Supreme Court held that an employer must prove that it made a reasonable attempt to decipher the requirements of the law governing minimum wages in order to avail itself of the good faith defense against...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

CA Supreme Court Scales Back Judicial Deference for CPUC Decisions

On August 7, 2025, the California Supreme Court (the Court) issued Opinion S283614 in the case Center For Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission regarding the degree of deference that courts should afford...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

California Supreme Court Allows More Flexibility on Arbitration Fee Payment Rules

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressed whether California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which requires the party that drafted the arbitration agreement to pay...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Employers May Now Obtain Equitable Relief for Untimely Arbitration Payments

After years of appellate cases and several rulings holding California employers to the very strict payment standards of the California Arbitration Act (CAA), the California Supreme Court has, for the first time, addressed...more

DLA Piper

California Supreme Court Upholds California Law Imposing Mass Arbitration Fee Payment Deadline

DLA Piper on

The California Supreme Court recently issued a significant decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt California laws requiring businesses to pay consumer or...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

California Supreme Court Tackles Federal Preemption Issues in Employment and Consumer Arbitrations

Husch Blackwell LLP on

On August 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Dana Hohenshelt v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt the California...more

Fenwick & West LLP

CA Supreme Court: Federal Arbitration Act Does Not Preempt State Law on Timely Arbitration Fee Payment

Fenwick & West LLP on

The California Supreme Court recently held in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a California law that penalizes businesses that have consumer and employee arbitration...more

Downey Brand LLP

California Supreme Court Overrules Chevron-like Deference For Review of Decisions of California Public Utilities Commission

Downey Brand LLP on

On August 7, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Center For Biological Diversity v. California Public Utilities Commission. The decision reversed the decision of a lower appellate court which had...more

Blank Rome LLP

From Rigid to Reasonable: Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Fee Payment Rules in California

Blank Rome LLP on

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court marks an important moment for arbitration in California, particularly in the context of consumer disputes, employment disputes, and mass arbitrations....more

McGuireWoods LLP

Corporate Defendants Take Note: California Supreme Court Rules State Law Requiring Timely Payment of Arbitration Fees Not...

McGuireWoods LLP on

On Aug. 11, 2025, in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98. The statute, intended to deter the...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

California Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Waiver Rule: Not as Draconian as It Seems

Womble Bond Dickinson on

The use of arbitration clauses in employment and consumer-related contracts is ubiquitous. California law requires companies facing employment and consumer claims in arbitration to pay arbitration fees and costs within 30...more

Paul Hastings LLP

California Supreme Court Issues Decision Addressing Whether the FAA Preempts California's Rule Governing Late Payment of...

Paul Hastings LLP on

The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, addressing whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California's rule governing late payment of arbitration fees, Cal. Code Civ....more

Buchalter

Late Fees, High Stakes: California Narrows Arbitration Fee Forfeiture Rule

Buchalter on

In its August 11, 2025 decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (S284498), the California Supreme Court clarified the reach of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98, the 30-day arbitration fee payment rule. While...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

California Supreme Court Dials Back Deference for Review of California Public Utilities Commission Decisions

In a recent decision, Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected the "uniquely deferential" standard of review previously given to California Public...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Will the California Supreme Court Put the Heads Back on Headless PAGA Suits?

Since our last coverage of “headless PAGA lawsuits”—i.e., lawsuits in which a plaintiff disavows his individual PAGA claim and opts to pursue the claim only on behalf of others—significant developments have further...more

Perkins Coie

Pre-1972 Conveyance of Multiple Lots Did Not Create Separate Legal Parcels Under Map Act

Perkins Coie on

Under the Subdivision Map Act, the creation of legal parcels prior to 1972 requires more than a deed referencing multiple lots—only a conveyance that separates a portion of land from contiguous property creates a new legal...more

Nossaman LLP

California Supreme Court Takes Up Utility Take-Over Standard of Review Dispute

Nossaman LLP on

We previously reported on the recent California Court of Appeal district split as to what standard of review should apply in utility takeover condemnation cases as it pertains to more necessary public use challenges, and...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

California Supreme Court Clarifies Cost Shifting Under CCP Section 998

CDF Labor Law LLP on

The California Supreme Court has clarified how the cost-shifting provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 (“Section 998”) may apply when a case settles before trial. In a recent decision, Madrigal v....more

Holland & Knight LLP

Court Upholds City's Reliance on CEQA Exemption, Reaffirms Canons of Statutory Interpretation

Holland & Knight LLP on

In April 2021, a developer applied to the City of King City, California (City), for a proposed 18,000-square-foot Grocery Outlet store (Project). The Project site was a former 1.6-acre car sales lot adjacent to Highway 101...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

PAGA Paraphrased – Stone v. Alameda Health System

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

The California Supreme Court Shrugs Off a Settlement to Provide Important Guidance on Admissibility of Former Deposition Testimony...

We reported back in December [California Supreme Court Set to Decide How Defense Counsel Approach Defending Company Witness Depositions] on a case then pending before the California Supreme Court, Berroteran v. Superior...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

California Supreme Court Set to Decide How Defense Counsel Approach Defending Company Witness Depositions

The California Supreme Court will soon decide an evidentiary issue that could significantly impact how company witnesses are defended at deposition. The Court heard argument December 7 in Berroteran v. Ford Motor Co., No....more

Cozen O'Connor

California Supreme Court: Insurer Immunity Under California’s Ratemaking Statutes Is Narrow

Cozen O'Connor on

In its recent decision, Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Company, --- P.3d ---, No. S252035, 2021 WL 1031874 (Cal. Mar. 18, 2021), the California Supreme Court rejected an expansive view of the immunity afforded to title...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Only A Contracting Party May Sue Under Government Code Section 1092

Calif. Supreme Court: San Diegans for Open Government v. Public Facilities Financing Authority of the City of San Diego - Only a party to a contract may bring a legal action under Government Code section 1092 to invalidate...more

26 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide