Selected Amicus Curiae Briefs and Letters:
 
 
Arbitration/Class Action Waivers
  • Reyes v. Liberman Broadcasting, Inc. (pdf) - CAOC's letter urging the California Supreme Court to issue a grant and hold pending the outcome in Iskanian.  Iskanian will determine whether state contract defenses survive in the wake of the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1740.
  • Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC S204032 (pdf) - CAOC's letter urging the California Supreme Court review.  Iskanian  addresses the scope of the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011) 563 US ___ with regard to employment agreements that contain representative and class action waivers.
  • Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development, LLC, S186149 (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief to the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether arbitration clauses in CC & R's are unconscionable.
  • Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, S199119 (pdf)
  • Sonic-Calabasas v. Moreno, S174475 - CAOC's amicus brief to the California Supreme Court, co-authored with the California Employment Lawyers Association, addressed the issues of whether, in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT& T Mobility v. Concepcion, provisions in an arbitration agreement that waived an employee's right to seek an administrative “Berman” hearing before the Labor Commissioner were valid.
  • Wisdom v. AccentCare, Inc., S200128 (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief to the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an arbitration clause in an employment agreement that provides “I agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application” is unenforceable as substantively unconscionable for lack of mutuality.
 
UCL/17200/CLRA Litigation
  • Aryeh v. Cannon Business Solutions (pdf) - CAOC's successful brief to the California Supreme Court urging the Court to hold that where the facts and evidence warrant its application, the delayed discovery rule should apply to delay the accrual of UCL causes of action.
  • In re Tobaccco II Cases, S147345 (pdf) - CAOC's Amicus Curiae brief to the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether it was sufficient, in a UCL action, under Proposition 64, for only the class representative to have standing, or whether each and every class member must show standing in order to bring an action.
  • Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, S171845 (pdf) - CAOC’s Amicus Curiae brief to the California Supreme Court in Kwikset, focuses on additional UCL standing issues, post- Proposition 64.
  • Rose v. Bank of America, S199074 (pdf) - CAOC's Amicus Curiae brief to the California Supreme Court speaks to the issue of whether a UCL “unlawful” prong claim could be predicated on an alleged violation of the Federal Truth In Savings Act despite the fact that Congress had repealed the private right of action initially provided for in the act.
  • Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, S176146 (pdf) - CAOC requested depublication of Yabsley based on the errors that we believe it contained regarding proper UCL analysis.  
  • Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood, B230410, 2nd DCA (pdf) -  CAOC's requested publication of this decision based on its post-Proposition 64 interpretation of many important UCL related issues.
     
Employment
  • Braun v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., B234212 2nd DCA, Div. 5 (pdf) - CAOC’s amicus brief addressing whether the trial court abused its discretion by terminating plaintiff’s action after he violated the court’s discovery order by deleting files from his personal computer’s hard drive. The Court of Appeal concluded that while the lower court had not abuse its discretion by ordering discovery of the data storage files in the first place, it did abuse its discretion in terminating the action altogether.  
  • Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, S166350 (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief to the California Supreme Court addressed important employment law issue of whether an employee must actually in fact relieve a worker from all work-related duties during the meal breaks that they are entitled to under California law.  
  • Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. S181004 (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief to the California Supreme Court discusses the issue of whether Labor Code Section 226.7 premium wages are encompassed within the broad language of Labor Code Section 1194.
  • Duran v. US Bank, S200923 (pdf) - CAOC's letter in support of review or a grant and transfer.  Duran addresses class trial procedure in employment class actions.
  • Harris v. Liberty Mutual, S156555 (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief addressed the issue of whether insurance claims adjusters fall into the “administrative exception” from California laws requiring payment for overtime, minimum wage, and mandatory meal and rest breaks.
 
Liens/Insurance
  • Corenbaum v. Lampkin (B236227) (pdf) - CAOC's brief seeks to narrow the application of Howell's evidentiary limitation on the reasonable value of medical services.
  • Howell v. Hamilton Meats, S179155 (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief to the California Supreme Court discusses the issue of whether discounts, negotiated by health insurers on behalf of their insureds, are subject to the collateral source rule.
  • Bison v. Thyssen Krupp Elevator Corp., A131622, 1st DCA (pdf) - CAOC's letter urged the Court to publish this post-Howell decision, which described the evidentiary value of the reasonable value of medical services.
 
Products/Environmental/Asbestos
  • Barker v. Hennessy, B232316, 2nd DCA, Div. 2 (pdf) - Barker held as a matter of law that a brake grinder manufacturer cannot be liable for asbestos exposure occurring from the use of the grinder on asbestos-containing brakes.  CAOC letter requested depublication of the case based on it being in direct conflict with two published decisions from the First District.
     
  • Vanhooser v. Superior Court, B239677, 2nd DCA (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief supporting an extraordinary writ to the 2nd DCA addressed the issue of whether a spouse of a plaintiff diagnosed with mesothelioma who was married after exposure to asbestos but before diagnosis can claim loss of consortium. 
 
General Torts/Personal Injury
  • Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., S178799 (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief to the California Supreme Court discusses issues of duty and causation in negligence cases and to what extent a court has the ability to decide as a matter of law that no duty existed.
  • Ennabe v. Manosa, S189577 (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief in Ennabe addresses issues surrounding social host liability and whether charging an “entry fee” to a party and serving alcohol to obviously intoxicated minors begets liability.
  • Beckwith v. Dahl, G044479, 4th DCA, Div. 3 (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief, requested by the 4th DCA, discusses the issue of whether interference with an expectancy should be recognized as a new tort in California.
     
MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act)
 
  • Stinnett v. Tam, F057784, 5th DCA (pdf) - CAOC's amicus brief in the Stinnett case argues that California's $250,000 cap on non-economic damages (Civil Code Section 3333.2) is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.