18 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com was so substantively unconscionable that it rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable?” (Fully briefed February 2, 2023.) (See § 5.2.) What public entities are subject to the Labor Code provisions regarding breaks, overtime, and payroll records, and does PAGA apply to public entities? In Stone v. Alameda Health System, 88 Cal. App. 5th 84 (2023), review granted No. S279137 (Cal. May 17, 2023), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “(1) Are all public entities exempt from the obligations in the Labor Code regarding meal and rest breaks, overtime, and payroll records, or only those public entities that satisfy the “hallmarks of sovereignty” standard adopted by the Court of Appeal in this case? (2) Does the exemption from the prompt payment statutes in Labor Code section 220, subdivision (b), for “employees directly employed by any county, incorporated city, or town or other municipal corporation” include all public entities that exercise governmental functions? (3) Do the civil penalties available under [PAGA] … apply to public entities?” (Opening brief due July 17, 2023.) (See § 7.) Do PAGA plaintiffs have the right to intervene in related actions? In Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 69 Cal.App.5th 955 (2021), review granted, No. S271721 (Cal. Nov. 10, 2021), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “Does a plaintiff in a representative action filed under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq.) have the right to intervene, or object to, or move to vacate, a judgment in a related action that purports to settle the claims that plaintiff has brought on behalf of the state?” (See § 5.15.3.) What is the significance of an out of state forum selection clause when an employer moves to compel arbitration outside of California? In Zhang v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. App. 5th 167 (2022), review granted No. S277736 (Cal. May 15, 2023), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “(1) If an employer files a motion to compel arbitration in a non-California forum pursuant to a contractual forumselection clause, and an employee raises as a defense Labor Code section 925, which prohibits an employer from requiring a California employee to agree to a provision requiring the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California, is the court in the non-California forum one of ‘competent jurisdiction’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4) such that the motion to compel requires a mandatory stay of the California proceedings? (2) Does the presence of a delegation clause in an employment contract delegating issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator prohibit a California court from enforcing Labor Code section 925 in opposition to the employer’s stay motion?” (Answering brief filed June 30, 2023.) (See § 5.3.)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4