CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT 

Arbitration

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) __ Cal.5th __, 2025 WL 2302229: The California Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the Court of Appeal. It affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision concluding that California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98 is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). But the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and disapproved numerous recent Court of Appeal decisions, concluding that section 1281.98 does not require an automatic loss of contractual arbitration rights whenever a party fails to pay arbitration fees within 30 days, finding no indication that the Legislature intended to strip companies and employers of their contractual right to arbitration where nonpayment of fees results from a good faith mistake, inadvertence, or other excusable neglect. Section 1281.98 does not displace background statutes permitting relief to a breaching party in certain circumstances. The Court of Appeal was directed to remand the matter to the trial court for consideration of whether defendant might be excused for its failure to timely pay arbitration fees, such that the stay of litigation should not be lifted and the parties should be returned to arbitration, and whether the delay resulted in compensable harm to plaintiff. (August 11, 2025.) 

Employment

Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) __ Cal.5th __, 2025 WL 2414467: The California Supreme Court addressed the good faith defense of employers to the default rule that employees who prove minimum wage violations are entitled to liquidated damages under Labor Code, § 1194.2, and whether a trial court may consider a claim under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (§ 245 et seq.; the “Paid Sick Leave law”) that an employee raises in the context of their employer’s appeal to the superior court of a Labor Commissioner ruling. (§ 98.2, subd. (a).) The California Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeal on both issues, ruling that ignorance of the law is insufficient to prove a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2, and also concluding that employees may raise Paid Sick Leave claims in an appeal by the employer of a Labor Commissioner’s Ruling.

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL 

Attorneys

County of Los Angeles v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 29874701: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the defendant law firm seeking a declaratory relief judgment finding there was no valid engagement agreement between defendant law firm and county plaintiffs, even though an engagement agreement had been signed by then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva. The central issue dispute was whether or not then-Sheriff Villanueva had the authority to retain–as opposed to select–independent counsel to represent him in a lawsuit the County of Los Angeles brought against Villanueva. Defendant law firm sought recovery of over $1.7 million in legal fees and costs. The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, finding that Sheriff Alex Villanueva lacked authority to enter into a fee agreement with defendant. It denied defendant’s post-judgment motion to file a cross-complaint as untimely and made in bad faith, and it dismissed defendant’s separate suit for payment as barred by the compulsory cross-complaint statute and the Government Claims Act. The Court of Appeal agreed, concluding that the sheriff had no authority to retain defendant firm, that the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint was properly denied, and that defendant firm’s later lawsuit was correctly dismissed for failure to comply with procedural requirements. (C.A. 2nd, October 23, 2025.)

Elder Abuse

Frankland v. Etehad (2025) __ Cal.App.5th __, 2025 WL 2267750: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts’ order sustaining defendant doctor’s demurrer to plaintiff’s causes of action alleging neglect and financial abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the Act; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, concluding that an elder cannot state a claim under the Act for “neglect” or “financial abuse” against a physician based solely on that physician’s negligent medical services while the elder resided at a skilled nursing facility. The Act limits “neglect” to “[t]he negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of any elder . . .” (§ 15610.57, subd. (a)(1), italics added), and a physician’s conduct in providing negligent medical services to an elder residing at a skilled nursing facility does not—without more—constitute “neglect” because that physician lacks the requisite “robust caretaking or custodial relationship” with the elder. Moreover, the alleged financial abuse flows inexorably from the alleged professional negligence, such abuse is indistinguishable from that negligence and also falls outside the Act. (C.A. 2nd, August 8, 2025.) 

Employment

Galarsa v. Dolgen California (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 2846580: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and its petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the trial court ruling. The trial court held that an employee could pursue a “headless” PAGA action—one seeking penalties only for Labor Code violations suffered by other employees—and that the question of whether the plaintiff was an “aggrieved employee” need not be arbitrated. The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that under the version of PAGA in effect before the 2024 amendments, employees could bring such representative actions and that the arbitration agreement did not extend to determining PAGA standing, since that dispute belongs to the State’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency, not the individual plaintiff. (C.A. 5th, filed September 9, 2025, published October 8, 2025.)

Land Use

New Commune DTLA LLC et al. v. City Redondo Beach et al. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 2886322: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of mandate challenging defendant’s housing element adopted under the state Housing Element Law (Housing Element Law; Government Code sections 65580 to 65589.11). The trial court ruled that defendant’s housing element complied with the Housing Element Law despite plaintiffs’ claims that it improperly relied on a zoning “overlay” permitting residential use on commercial and industrial land. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that defendant’s overlay violated Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2) because it failed to impose mandatory minimum residential densities and allowed development without any housing, and that defendant failed to establish that one of the sites identified in the housing element, the Inglewood Avenue site currently occupied by a Vons supermarket, was properly identified as a developable site. (C.A. 2nd, October 10, 2025.)