The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for Wednesday, December 3, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles, in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1136 (Supreme Court No. S153846). In Meyer, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Proposition 64 created a two-part, standing test, and applied that test to bar claims by plaintiffs who were unable to show that the defendant had attempted to enforce the unlawful and unconscionable provisions in their agreements. The formal statement of issues on review reads as follows:
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of dismissal of a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Has a person suffered "damage" within the meaning of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code, section 1780, subd. (a)), such as to allow that person to bring an action under the Act if that person is a party to an agreement containing an unconscionable term (see Civil Code, section 1770, subd. (a)(19)), even though no effort has been made to enforce the unconscionable term? (2) Did plaintiffs have standing to seek declaratory relief?
Given that statement of issues, the opinion might be completely inapplicable to wage and hour cases, but it might also be broad enough to affect some unfair competition claims arising from illegal employment policies that have never resulted in discipline, as long as voluntary compliance by the employees has caused a monetary loss of some sort. Believe it or not, the scenario is not that unusual. We're following the case, therefore, for that reason and because we just like the idea of someone suing Sprint and winning.
Review was granted in August 2007.
If this is any guide, we're looking at argument in Brinker around February 2010.
Posted by: Rob | October 28, 2008 at 10:15 AM