News & Analysis as of

California › CA Supreme Court › Statutory Interpretation

Best Best & Krieger LLP

CA Supreme Court Scales Back Judicial Deference for CPUC Decisions

Best Best & Krieger LLP on

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

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

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

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

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on

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?

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

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

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

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

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

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide