Class Action

Supreme Court briefs in Pineda v. Bank of America

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

The Supreme Court has posted copies of the briefs in Pineda v. Bank of America, no. S170758, which is scheduled for oral argument in Fresno on Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.:

S170758 - PINEDA v. BANK OF AMERICA
(Chin, J., not participating; Richli, J., assigned justice pro tempore)

• Expanded Background Summary
• Appellant's Petition for Review
• Respondent's Answer to Petition for Review
• Appellant's Reply to Answer to Petition for Review
• Appellant's Opening Brief on the Merits
• Respondent's Answer Brief on the Merits
• Appellant's Reply Brief on the Merits

From a UCL perspective, the most interesting issue in Pineda is whether waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 may be recovered as restitution in a UCL "unlawful" prong case for violation of that section.  The opening brief on the merits relies on the "vested interest" theory of UCL restitution, arguing that like the "earned wages" "due and payable? in Cortez, the penalty wages are also due and payable by operation of statute, giving the workers a property interest in the funds recoverable under the UCL as restitution. I think that's a persuasive argument, wholly consistent with Cortez and the purpose of UCL restitution generally. 

The brief says that Judge David Velasquez of the Orange County Superior Court has adopted that reasoning in at least one other case.  The order referred to appears to be the same one discussed in this blog post from May 2008.

For more on the "vested interest" theory of UCL restitution, see my article on the subject (link accessible to CAOC members only). 

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on September 30, 2010 (boomark / email).