LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery CA2/4

Filed 8/15/22 LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

JILL LAFACE, B309721

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC632679) v.

RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia Nieto, Judge. Dismissed. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, André E. Jardini, K.L. Myles, Greta T. Hutton; Capstone Law, Ryan Y. Wu, Melissa Grant and John Stobart; Law Offices of Michael V. Jehdian and Michael V. Jehdian for Plaintiff and Appellant. Morrison & Foerster, Tritia M. Murata, Wendy J. Ray, Karen J. Kubin, James R. Sigel for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Decedent Jill LaFace filed a representative action against Ralphs Grocery Company under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq. (PAGA)) seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of workplace seating requirements. Following a bench trial, the superior court entered judgment in favor of Ralphs. We affirmed the judgment. (See LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 388 (LaFace).) Following the trial, the court awarded costs to Ralphs in the amount of $193,857.98. LaFace appealed. LaFace died while this appeal was pending, before the opening brief was filed. LaFace’s counsel has not attempted to substitute LaFace’s personal representative or successor in interest into the case. Ralphs moved to strike the opening brief and requested that we dismiss the appeal because there is no appellant. We agree, and therefore grant Ralphs’s motion to strike the opening brief and dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND LaFace worked as a cashier at a store owned by respondent Ralphs Grocery Company. She brought a PAGA action against Ralphs on behalf of herself and other current and former Ralphs cashiers, alleging that Ralphs violated an Industrial Welfare Commission wage order that required employers to provide suitable seating for cashiers. (LaFace, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 392.) A bench trial was held between November and December 2019, and the trial court found that Ralphs had not violated the wage order. (Ibid.) We affirmed the judgment. Although LaFace died before the reply brief was filed, we exercised our discretion