18 | 2024 Cal-Peculiarities ©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com Do California Code of Civil Procedure section 998’s cost-shifting provisions apply if parties agree on a pre-trial settlement? In Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, 90 Cal. App. 5th 385 (2023), review granted, No. S280598 (Cal. Aug. 30, 2023), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “[Do] the Code of Civil Procedure section 998’s cost-shifting provisions apply if the parties ultimately negotiate a pre-trial settlement?” (Answering brief filed Apr. 8, 2024.) Is California's test for determining waiver of the right to arbitration valid? In Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., 78 Cal. App. 5th 470 (2022), review granted, No. S275121 (Cal. Aug 24, 2022), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “Does California’s test for determining whether a party has waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation remain valid after the United States Supreme Court decision in [Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., ___U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 1708 (2022)]?” (Argued and submitted May 21, 2024.) Is a provision providing for recovery of fees on a motion to compel arbitration substantively unconscionable? In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., 75 Cal. App. 5th 365 (2022), review granted, No. S273802 (Cal. June 1, 2022), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that a provision of an arbitration agreement allowing for recovery of interim attorney’s fees after a successful motion to compel arbitration, was so substantively unconscionable that it rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable?” (Agued and submitted May 8, 2024.) 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?” (Supplemental Brief filed by Respondent on Apr. 26, 2024.) (See § 5.15.3.) Do non-California forum selection clauses in arbitration agreements violate Labor Code section 925? In Zhang v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. App. 5th 167 (2022), review granted, No. S277736 (Cal. Feb 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 forum-selection 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?” (Fully briefed July 19, 2023.)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4