California Appellate Tracker

Walker v. Apple, Inc.

November 6, 2016

Counsel for the plaintiff class in one wage-and-hour suit against Apple is too conflicted to act as counsel for the plaintiff class in a separate wage-and-hour case against the same company, since members of the first class would likely be defense witnesses in the second class.

Counsel for the plaintiff class in one wage-and-hour suit against Apple is disqualified from acting as counsel for the plaintiff class in a separate wage-and-hour case against Apple. Several members of the first class had been promoted from hourly jobs to exempt managerial positions. They might be key witnesses in the second case, which involved giving terminated workers final pay stubs. Apple contended its managers were responsible for giving terminated workers their final pay stubs. So some members of the first class would be witnesses in the second case, and in that case, class counsel would have to cross-examine them to establish that they had not given their departing workers the required pay stubs, thus proving them either to be liars or poor managers. See also Baas v. Dollar Stores, Inc., No. C 07-03108 JSW, 2008 WL 906496 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2008).

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (Haller, J.); September 28, 2016 (published October 28, 2016); 2016 WL 6395074

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

Walker v. Apple, Inc.

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson