California Supreme Court activity for the week of December 12, 2011 [with Brinker Bonus!]

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on December 14, 2011.  Notable results include:

• Brinker news!  The submission of the matter is vacated and additional briefing is requested.  Wait. You thought that a decision was imminent after oral argument?  So precious!  This is BRINKER we are talking about.  Your children will be writing supplemental briefs for this decision.  The California legislature will have withdrawn and re-enacted an entire Labor Code before a decision is rendered (at which point it will again be vacated for briefing on the impact of changed law retroactively).

The downside of this news is that I will need to create a 2012 edition of my Brinker News graphics.

Oral argument comes and goes in Brinker; many prognosticators see a Court rejecting the "ensure" standard

Oral argument was finally held in Brinker last week.  Wagering on appellate court outcomes after listening to oral arguments is not a smart use of gambling funds in most instances, and it seems dangerous here as well.  But most assessments of the argument seem to agree on two things.  First, the consensus is that the Justices appeared to direct a more critical set of questions to plaintiffs' counsel, Kimberly Kralowec, on the issue of whether employers must "ensure" that meal periods are taken, rather than simply "provide" employees with an opportunity to take a meal period.  Second, on the issue of when a meal must occur, at least Justice Liu appeared to take exception with an interpretation that would allow an employer to schedule meal period after more than five hours of work.

Here are a few examples of coverage of or opinions about the oral argument:

• Howard Mintz, California Supreme Court hears arguments in showdown over worker rest and meal breaks (November 8, 2011) San Jose Mercury News
• Alison S. Hightower, What is the duty to "provide" a meal period? Oral argument before the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (November 8, 2011) Lexology
• Kathy Robertson, Supreme Court wages hearing focuses on enforcing meal breaks (November 8, 2011) Sacramento Business Journal

In something approximating 90 days we will finally know the answer to this great mystery.

BOOM! Brinker goes on Supreme Court's calendar for November; nobody cares after Concepcion stole all the oxygen

There we have it.  Brinker is set for argument on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco.  I have to wonder if this will amount to less of a bombshell now that the class action practitioners of the world are intensely focused on how Concepcion will impact wage & hour class actions generally.  But we've waited so long for answers to the many questions raised by Brinker that we deserve an answer.  Thank goodness I don't have to make a Brinker-Watch 2012 graphic.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of May 16, 2011

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on May 18, 2011.  Notable results include:

• As has been the practice in all prior published cases on this issue, on a petition for review, review was granted, and the matter held, in Tien v. Tenet Healthcare (February 16, 2011) (affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification of meal period, rest break, and waiting time penalty claims). The opinion spent a substantial amount of time discussing the meal period compliance question under review in Brinker.

Wait for Brinker continues

The California Supreme Court released its oral argument calendar for March 8th and 9th.  Still no sign of Brinker.  But it was a great excuse to use the Brinker 2009/2010/2011 news alert icon.

Your first taste of Brinker in 2011, compliments of Hernandez v. Chipotle

On January 26, 2011, the Supreme Court held a weekly conference.  Of particular note was the "GRANTED and Held" Order in the matter of Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.  Hernandez was striking for how vehemently it ignored Jaimez when it chose to follow the most anti-employee decisions of various federal courts and then enunciate a meal period standard that is the functional equivalent of the standard applicable to rest breaks.  See prior blog post here.  Maybe it means nothing at all other than the Supreme Court doesn't want published meal period cases floating around while Brinker is pending.  Or maybe the Supreme Court is close to the finish line on Brinker and views Hernandez as inconsistent with its intended holdings.

Update on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 11:05PM by The Complex Litigator

I wasn't prepared at the time, but now I am ready with my Brinker-Watch 2011 tile.  Look for this tile to alert you to breaking Brinker news.  After all, it's just about time for the Supreme Court to announce its March calendar...

Despite pending Brinker case, Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. declares that standard for rest break applies to meal periods

In case you hadn't heard, Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) is pending before the California Supreme Court.  Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 1286 (2010), rev. denied (2010) held that certification of meal period claims was appropriate because, among other reasons, that unsettled meal period standard was also a classwide issue.  But in an unexpected twist, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight), in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., decided that, rather than recommending to the trial court that it certify the meal period claim and await Brinker, it would just tell us what that standard is right now.  And, according to the Hernandez Court, the meal period standard is the same standard that applies to rest breaks:

Hernandez admits employers must provide, i.e., authorize and permit, employees to take rest breaks, but contends a different standard applies to meal breaks and thus, the trial court‟s legal analysis was faulty. This contention is not persuasive. “The California Supreme Court has described the interest protected by meal break provisions, stating that „[a]n employee forced to forgo his or her meal period . . . has been deprived of the right to be free of the employer‟s control during the meal period.‟ Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1104 (2007). It is an employer's obligation to ensure that its employees are free from its control for thirty minutes, not to ensure that the employees do any particular thing during that time. Indeed, in characterizing violations of California meal period obligations in Murphy, the California Supreme Court repeatedly described it as an obligation not to force employees to work through breaks. [Citation.]” (Brown v. Federal Express Corp. (C.D.Cal. 2008) 249 F.R.D. 580, 585, fn. omitted.)

Slip op., at 11, emphasis in original.  The Court affirmatively adopts some of the specious arguments from district courts, including the notion that it would be too hard for employees to actually make employees take breaks:

Hernandez's position also is not practical. “Requiring enforcement of meal breaks would place an undue burden on employers whose employees are numerous or who . . . do not appear to remain in contact with the employer during the day. See White v. Starbucks Corp., 497 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1088-89 (N.D.Cal.2007).

Slip op., at 13.  That argument is insulting.  Evidently an employer can control when employees come and go.  That's not too hard.  But they can't decide whether people work during other parts of the day.  Whatever standard is ultimately declared by the California Supreme Court, arguments like this cheapen the discussion.

Elsewhere in the opinion, the Court opines that it is perfectly fine to assess merits during certification.  It's a brave new world here in California.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of October 11, 2010

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on October 13, 2010.  Notable results include:

• On a Petition for Review, a grant and hold was issued in Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc. (June 24, 2010), covered previously here.

I previously wrote that the opinion in Faulkinbury offered nothing interesting in my opinion.  The Court of Appeal simply repeated the refrain that the trial court has fairly broad discretion when ruling on a motion for class certification.  However, after Wednesday, Faulkinbury just got more interesting.  The Supreme Court issued its grant and hold pending...wait for it...the outcome in Brinker.  One might surmise that the standard applied by the trial court in Faulkinbury may be materially affected by the outcome of Brinker.  That's interesting.  It suggests that the Supreme Court is thinking about how the certification process will be impacted by its ruling in Brinker.  In fact, the Supreme Court may already have some tentative thoughts about the likelihood of that occurring.  After all, since the trial court denied certification of a meal period claim in Faulkinbury, one could suppose that the Supreme Court is leaning towards a decision in Brinker that would change that result.

Brinker Watch 2010 - Version 2

In March of this year, I observed that Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) was fully briefed back in October 2009.  At that time, I moved the over-under on an Opinion release date from August 2010 to October 2010.  I regret to inform anyone with office pools that I must now make a second, larger move of the line and set the over-under at February 2011.

The problem arises because the Supreme Court is done hearing cases for Summer 2010.  As you can see here, July and August will have no case arguments.  September is the earliest that Brinker could be placed on an oral argument calendar.  For purposes of wagering only (which I fully support but will not participate in), I'm guessing that the argument occurs in November, resulting in a February 2011 opinion release target date.

Brinker Watch 2010

If you were in a coma for a while, Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) was fully briefed back in October 2009.  And...that's it.  Other than a striking new logo for 2010, there is no news.  I post this only because this blog receives traffic from Brinker searches on an almost daily basis.  I should have added some sort of extra bit to the logo, like "Now with EXTRA uncertainty...."  Back in September 2009 I moved my estimate for an Opinion release date out from June 2010 to August 2010.  The notice of argument would need to issue in April to make that August Opinion release date a near certainty.  Thus, I need to adjust the over-under to October 2010 to equalize the wagering.  Place your bets, folks.