Gizem Gures Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
suggests the putative class (consisting of distribution center employees) is narrower than the aggrieved employee group (consisting of distribution, fulfillment, and warehouse center employees), but it appears to the Court that these are essentially the same group. In any event, Plaintiff never explains the difference between distribution, fulfillment, and warehouse centers.
II. Discussion
“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Defendant argues a stay of this case pending resolution of the Class Action would promote judicial efficiency. The Court agrees.
There is a serious risk of conflicting rulings between the two cases. Plaintiff’s standing to sue as a PAGA plaintiff depends on his having suffered at least one of the Labor Code violations complained of. (See Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73.) If this case and the Class Action continue side-by-side, there could be simultaneous holdings by (1) the federal court that Plaintiff suffered none of the Labor Code violations he complains of, so his claims fail on the merits, and (2) this Court that Plaintiff has suffered Labor Code violations and thus has standing to sue under PAGA.
To avoid this problem, the better course is to stay the later-filed case (this one) in favor of the earlier-filed case (the Class Action) and see if there is anything left to litigate about Plaintiff’s PAGA standing when the Class Action concludes. Plaintiff contends it is “unanswered whether any federal ruling would have preclusive effect here” (Opp. at p. 12), but a finding that Plaintiff suffered no Labor Code violations in the Class Action would presumably bar PAGA standing in this case. (See Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 65, 78-82 (arbitrator’s finding that plaintiffs had not suffered § 1102.5 violation barred PAGA claim predicated on § 1102.5 violations).)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff contends a stay would “increase the risk that witnesses leave, memories fade, or records become harder to locate” (Opp. at p. 11), so a stay is inappropriate. But any delay in resolving the PAGA claim compared to the class action is Plaintiff’s fault. He chose to file two separate suits predicated on the same Labor Code violations, and he chose not to file a notice of related cases as required by the Rules of Court. Had he amended his class action complaint as a matter of right to add a PAGA claim, the PAGA claim and the class claims would both be pending in a single action in federal court and proceeding on the same track.
For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to find that a stay of this action pending resolution of the Class Action would accommodate the ends of justice and promote judicial efficiency.
10 Roe 26 A.B. vs. Gizem Gures Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Anaheim Union High School District Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
Slater Slater Schulman LLP moves to be relieved as counsel for Jane Roe 27 M.M., Jane Roe 33 B.G., and John Roe 34 R.P. The motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth below.
Additionally, the clerk is directed to seal the papers filed at the following
entries in the register of actions: ROA 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 43, 44, 48, and 49.
GROUNDS FOR RULING
CRC 3.1362(c) requires that a motion to be relieved as counsel be supported by a declaration on Judicial Council form MC-052, “Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil.” Counsel’s declarations were not made on the Judicial Council form. If the declarations contained all information required by the Rules of Court, the Court would likely overlook this issue. However, the declarations contain no proof that the moving papers were served on the clients as required by CRC 3.1362(d), and the proofs of service attached to the moving papers only show service on AUHSD. Accordingly, because there is no proof the moving papers were served on the clients, the motions are denied without prejudice.
The Court expects that any refiled motions will be properly supported by declarations on form MC-052 that include all information required by the Rules of Court. In this regard, the Court notes that CRC 3.1362(c) provides the declaration shall state the grounds for withdrawal “without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship.” The declarations in support of the current motions include letters from counsel to the clients that are presumably privileged communications. If counsel believes it is necessary to reveal privileged or confidential information to the Court, the proper course of action is to request an in camera hearing, not to file privileged communications in the public record. (See Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1136-1137.)
Finally, although Plaintiffs have filed suit pseudonymously, the current motions and proposed orders include the clients’ unredacted addresses, and the current supporting declarations include the clients’ unredacted names. In the interest of preserving the clients’ privacy, the clerk is directed to seal the current moving papers. The Court orders that any refiled moving papers redact the clients’ names and addresses, and that unredacted copies be lodged with the Court.
The Court finds that the clients’ legitimate privacy concerns outweigh the public interest in motions to be relieved as counsel, that these concerns will be prejudiced if their names and addresses are filed in the public record, that redaction of their names and addresses is an appropriately narrow measure to protect the clients’ interests, and that no less restrictive means exist to protect the clients’ interests. (See CRC 2.550(d).) Accordingly, no further order of the Court is needed for counsel to refile these motions with the redactions described above, along with the lodging of unredacted copies.