Verdugo v. Alliantgroup

Filed 6/25/15 (unmodified opn. attached)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

RACHEL VERDUGO,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G049139

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00643612)

ALLIANTGROUP, L.P., ORDER (1) MODIFYING OPINION AND (2) DENYING REHEARING; Defendant and Respondent. NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

On the court’s own motion, it is ordered the opinion filed in the above- entitled matter on May 28, 2015, is hereby MODIFIED as follows: 1. On page 3, the first sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “The few cases Alliantgroup cites,” insert the words “Labor Code” between the words “in the context of a” and “wage and hour dispute,” so the sentence reads as follows: The few cases Alliantgroup cites do not address how a Texas court will view a choice-of-law clause in the context of a Labor Code wage and hour dispute between a Texas employer and a California employee, and Alliantgroup fails to address the competing policies of these two states.

2. On page 3, the second sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “Alliantgroup could have eliminated any doubt,” delete the words “failed to” and replace them with the words “it did not,” so the sentence reads as follows: Alliantgroup could have eliminated any doubt about which law would apply to Verdugo’s claims by stipulating to have the Texas courts apply California law, but it did not do so. 3. On page 3, the third sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “Instead, Alliantgroup carefully phrased,” delete the entire sentence and replace it with the following: Instead, Alliantgroup acknowledged Texas might apply California law while simultaneously minimizing the significance of the California statutory rights on which Verdugo bases her claims. 4. On page 20, the first sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “Alliantgroup could have eliminated,” delete the words “failed to” and replace them with the words “did not,” so the sentence reads as follows: Alliantgroup could have eliminated any uncertainty on which law a Texas court would apply by stipulating to have a Texas court apply California law in deciding Verdugo’s claims, but Alliantgroup did not do so. 5. On page 20, the second sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “Instead, Alliantgroup has carefully preserved,” delete the words “carefully” and “seeking to,” and replace the word “downplay” with “downplaying,” so the sentence reads as follows: Instead, Alliantgroup preserved its ability to argue to a Texas court that it should apply Texas law, and Alliantgroup has hinted at its intention to do so by downplaying the significance of the statutory rights Verdugo seeks to enforce through this action.