Garau v. Dept. of Industrial Relations CA2/2

Filed 4/30/15 Garau v. Dept. of Industrial Relations CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

OLGA H. GARAU, B257958

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC483476) v.

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rolf M. Treu, Judge. Affirmed. Olga H. Garau, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Office of the Director- Legal Unit, Christopher G. Jagard, Christopher Frick, Jay J. Lee and Marilyn Bacon, for Defendants and Respondents.

* * * * * *

An employee of a division of a state department sues her division, the state department of which it is a part, and the state itself for employment-related claims. May attorneys from the department’s legal unit represent all three state entities in the action? We conclude that they may, and affirm the denial of the employee’s motion to disqualify defense counsel. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Olga Garau (plaintiff) is an attorney, and an employee of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). Proceeding pro se, plaintiff sued DOSH, the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), and the State of California for (1) violations of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.), (2) breach of a variety of statutory duties relating to her FEHA claim (Gov. Code, §§ 18710, 19869; Civ. Code, § 3522; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128, 128.7), and (3) breach of contract. DOSH is a subdivision of the DIR (Lab. Code, § 56), and the DIR is part of the Labor and Welfare Agency, an agency of the state’s executive branch (id., § 50; Gov. Code, § 15500 et seq). Attorneys from the Office of the Director of the DIR-Legal Unit (Legal Unit), on behalf of the DIR, demurred to plaintiff’s complaint and filed a special motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint. When no answer or other responsive pleading was filed for DOSH or the state, the trial court entered defaults against all three defendants. After the trial court relieved all three defendants from the default on account of attorney error, plaintiff sought to disqualify the Legal Unit as counsel for the defendants and moved for an accompanying order striking all responsive pleadings and entering a default judgment in her favor on two grounds: (1) statutory law—namely, Government 1 Code section 955.4 —requires the Attorney General to represent these state entities; and (2) the Legal Unit suffered from ethical conflicts of interest that preclude it from representing the defendants in this case. In opposing these motions, the Legal Unit