Naeun Rim

California Supreme Court Weighs Federal Preemption of State Arbitration Fee Rules The Court is reviewing Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, addressing whether California’s automatic forfeiture rule (voiding arbitration if fees aren’t paid within 30 days) conflicts with federal law under the FAA. Why this matters: • A pro-FAA decision would affirm that arbitration agreements can’t be undermined by state-specific procedures. • A California-favoring ruling would reinforce state-level control over consumer and employment arbitration practices. Legal teams in employment and consumer arbitration should monitor closely. Source: “California Supreme Court to Decide Key FAA Preemption Case on Arbitration Fee Compliance,” National Law Review, June 16, 2025. https://lnkd.in/epq7aZfr

7

#KaiserPermanente has agreed to pay $556 million to settle allegations that it submitted false #MedicareAdvantage claims for conditions patients did not have, representing the largest settlement in the program’s history. The settlement resolves whistleblower lawsuits alleging the company engaged in upcoding to secure higher government payments. Six whistleblowers will receive a combined $95 million, while Kaiser Permanente did not admit wrongdoing, emphasizing that the settlement avoids prolonged litigation. The case underscores ongoing concerns about fraudulent billing practices within Medicare Advantage. #healthinsurance

5

4 Comments

California Supreme Court Moves to Strip State Bar Trustees of Exam Authority California's Supreme Court on Wednesday proposed shifting oversight of the biannual lawyer licensing exam to the state bar's committee of bar examiners in an apparent rebuke of the board of trustees following the disastrous February test. Acting on its own motion, the high court released a series of recommended amendments to the Rules of Court, including the swap of exam responsibility. The proposals will now go out for 45 days of public comment before the court ultimately acts. The 53-page document offered no explanation for the changes sought. https://lnkd.in/gAfB2CrA

2

Michele Ballard Miller and Nicole Perkin of Cozen O'Connor will discuss the top ten issues facing California employers and examine recent agency and judicial developments.

1

California has enacted two new laws—AB 1415 and SB 351—effective January 1, 2026, that will materially affect private equity ownership and management services structures for physician and dental practices operating in the state. My colleagues Anthony Del Rio and Caitlin Kierum break down everything you need to know. Read on!

21

2 Comments

📢 New California Bar Chief Under Pressure The State Bar’s new leader is facing tough challenges — bar exam controversy, budget shortfalls, and calls for reform. How will this impact future attorneys and the legal profession in California? 🔗 Read more: https://lnkd.in/gY_GWdkG #CaliforniaBar #BarExam #LegalNews #JDJournal #LegalEducation #AttorneyLife #LawStudents #BudgetCrisis #LegalReform #BarExamDebate

California Supreme Court Just Drew a Line on Fine‑Print in Arbitration Clauses. Did It Draw the Right One? In Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, the California Supreme Court refused to let “tiny, unreadable” arbitration clauses do double duty as both procedural and substantive unconscionability. The court’s message: bad formatting is about how the contract was imposed, not what it says. That sounds tidy in theory, but I’m not convinced it works in practice. When an arbitration agreement is visually impenetrable, adhesive, and presents take‑it‑or‑leave‑it conditions of employment, why isn’t that alone enough to call it unconscionable? Do we really need to find a second, separate defect in the terms before we’re willing to say, “this is too unfair to enforce?” By insisting on both procedural and substantive unconscionability, the doctrine treats each incident of unfairness as if it were somehow incomplete on its own. Yet a single, serious abuse—like hiding life‑altering dispute‑resolution terms in near‑illegible font—may be precisely the kind of conduct that should invalidate an agreement standing alone. Fuentes tries to split the difference: illegible clauses don’t automatically die, but they trigger “heightened scrutiny” of the terms and a willingness to read every ambiguity against the drafter. That’s a real risk for employers who rely on dense, unreadable forms—and a real opportunity for advocates to attack lopsided carve‑outs and remedial limits buried in that fine print. For in‑house counsel and management lawyers, the takeaway is simple. If your arbitration clause only survives because a court is willing to rescue it on a technical distinction between “procedure” and “substance,” you’re already in dangerous territory. Make it readable, balanced, and explain it. For plaintiff‑side and worker advocates, the path is just as clear: don’t stop at the font size. Use the illegibility as a spotlight and then ask the harder question—why did this need to be so hard to read, and what, exactly, was being hidden? I’m curious where others land: Is it time to rethink the idea that we must have both procedural and substantive unconscionability? Or is the two‑prong test a necessary brake on courts rewriting private agreements?

1

A Los Angeles judge threw out $950 million in punitive damages in one of the largest talcum powder verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in the past year. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ruth Kwan concluded that the punitive damages in a $966 million verdict on Oct. 6 were unwarranted, given that the evidence failed to show that Johnson & Johnson acted in malice or concealed knowledge that its talc contained asbestos. “A review of the entire record read in context and even in a light most favorable to plaintiffs reveal little, if anything, to suggest that J&J actually knew asbestos existed in its products,” she wrote in Friday’s decision. “Without having clearly and convincingly established that J&J had such knowledge (and failed to act), malice cannot be found.” O’Melveny & Myers partner Sabrina Heron Strong (below), in Los Angeles, and John Ewald, of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, represented Johnson & Johnson. In a motion for a new trial, Strong argued that the “jaw-dropping award” was “tainted by attorney and juror misconduct” and “defies evidence.” Johnson & Johnson cited the California 2nd District Court of Appeals’ 2019 decision to affirm dismissal of a $417 million talc verdict. Full story from Amanda Bronstad: https://lnkd.in/et9ChAP7

3

Renne Public Law Group's Appellate Practice Group continues to secure major victories for public agencies across California. Under the leadership of Partner and Head of Appellate Practice Ryan McGinley-Stempel, the team has secured unanimous decisions from the California Supreme Court and earned international recognition for its advocacy. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/gat8Twqi

16

Renne Public Law Group's Appellate Practice Group continues to secure major victories for public agencies across California. Under the leadership of Partner and Head of Appellate Practice Ryan McGinley-Stempel, the team has secured unanimous decisions from the California Supreme Court and earned international recognition for its advocacy. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/gat8Twqi

7

California Lawyers Association (CLA) affirms that constitutional protections apply to all persons. CLA has issued a statement expressing concern about recent federal law enforcement actions and underscoring the role of courts, oversight institutions, and the legal profession in safeguarding the rule of law. Read the full statement: https://lnkd.in/gqzY9bNB

109

1 Comment

The California Supreme Court is set to address "headless" PAGA claims in the Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. case in early 2026. Nathan Low, Ashton Riley, and Jeremy Stern highlight what employers need to know about this much-anticipated decision: https://bit.ly/47X57KN. #California #PAGA #employmentlaw #workplacelaw

17

A recent federal court decision has major implications for California employers navigating labor law changes. Littler’s Alex MacDonald and Joy Rosenquist break down what this ruling means and how it could shape compliance strategies going forward. Read the full analysis: https://bit.ly/4jhPXUh #EmploymentLaw #LaborLaw #HRCompliance #California

5