News & Analysis as of

Statutory Interpretation CA Supreme Court Employment Litigation

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

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

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

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

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

Littler

California Supreme Court Rules that the “Underpaid Wages” Component of Labor Code Section 558 is Not a Civil Penalty under PAGA

Littler on

In ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Lawson), the California Supreme Court held that unpaid wages are not civil penalties under California Labor Code section 558 and are therefore outside the reach of...more

8 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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide