Class Action

Supreme Court takes up two cases involving UCL issues: Pineda v. Bank of America and Sullivan v. Oracle

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

Today, the Supreme Court took up two cases involving UCL issues. 

First, the Court granted review in Pineda v. Bank of America, no. S170758, in which the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three) held that Labor Code ?section 203 penalties may not be recovered as restitution under Business and Professions Code section 17203.? Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 170 Cal.App.4th 388, 390 (2009) (discussed in this blog post).  That opinion is no longer citable as precedent. 

Second, the Court accepted the questions certified to it by the Ninth Circuit in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., no. S170577:

First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?

Second, does §17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one?

Third, does §17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA?

Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 557 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (listing certified questions).  See this blog post for more on the Ninth Circuit's withdrawn opinion, Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008).

As soon as I have time, I will add these cases to my list of pending Supreme Court cases involving UCL and/or class certification issues. 

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on April 22, 2009 (boomark / email).