Corporate officer can use attorney status to obtain relief from default class action judgment

/

My condolences to my colleague, Greg Karasik.  After almost two years of attempting to elicit some form of meaningful response from the defendant in Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Company, Mr. Karasik obtained something you don't see every day, a default judgment in a class action.  Sadly, that judgment of about $4 million was set aside by the trial court after it concluded that Michael Gray, Vice President and General Counsel for the defendant, could use his own neglect to set aside the default that he, in his capacity as corporate officer, knew about all along.  The Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) in Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Company (May 7, 2010) affirmed the decision.

The Court observed that the issue was one of first impression:

Today we face the related question of whether in-house attorneys come within the mandatory relief from default or dismissal provision of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is, as far as we are aware, one of first impression in California. However, based on what the Supreme Court said in General Dynamics and in PLCM about the role of in-house attorneys, there can be no doubt about the answer: yes.

There is a wrinkle in this case, however, that requires a little more explication. Here, the in-house attorney who negligently allowed a $4 million default judgment to be taken against his company and his employer, a gas station chain, had the title of “Vice President and General Counsel.” Thus, he was a corporate officer as well as being an in-house attorney. Should that make a difference?

Slip op., at 2.  Concluding that the issue was one of statutory construction, the Court found that "there is nothing in section 473 which suggests that in-house attorneys who are also officers of a corporation are somehow exempt from the operation of the mandatory provisions of the statute."  Slip op., at 3.

The opinion examines at some length the operation of section 473 as it pertains to in-house counsel.  I can credit the Court for a well-reasoned and well-written analysis (aside: though I regularly disagree with Division Three, there are some very good writers in that Division of the Fourth Appellate District).  Still, it is a disappointing outcome where an attorney that is also an officer of a company can avoid imputation of knowledge to the company by claiming that he was wearing his attorney hat.

Minor blog formatting adjustments and new tools...

/

SquareSpace rolled out some new features, one of which you will find in the right sidebar.  SquareSpace now stores Twitter posts on its own servers to speed load times.  The widget is also interactive, allowing you to navigate back through older Twitter posts.

While I was at it, I slightly expanded the width of the content area and then increased the font size for posts to improve readability.  If these sorts of things matter to you, feel free to leave a comment.

District Court certifies a class of Kelly Services employees alleging unpaid wages

/

United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken (Northern District of California) granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class of California-based staffing agency employees that spent time and incurred expenses for interviews with the staffing agency's clients.  Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., 2010 WL 1729174 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2010).  After prior cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court held that Plaintiff Catherine Sullivan should be compensated for the time she spent in her interviews, but not for her time preparing for and traveling to the interviews or her commuting expenses.  While the Court gives attention to the defendant's arguments, it looks as though this certification was not a close call after the summary judgment rulings.

Stolt-Nielsen S. A. et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.: Less than meets the eye

/

The interplay between class actions and arbitration provisions was a controversial topic for many years in California until Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148 (2005) and Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 443 (2007) eliminated a substantial amount of uncertainty about class arbitration waivers in the areas of consumer contracts and employment arbitration agreements. These decisions, and other applying their principles, declared that, in California, many class action waivers in the consumer and employment law settings are unconscionable under California law. Gentry, at 779. “[A]lthough ‘[c]lass action and arbitration waivers are not, in the abstract, exculpatory clauses’ (Discover Bank, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 161, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100), such a waiver can be exculpatory in practical terms because it can make it very difficult for those injured by unlawful conduct to pursue a legal remedy.” Gentry, at 783.

On April 27, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Stolt-Nielsen S. A. et al. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. Initial commentary quickly concluded that Stolt-Nielsen will eliminate many consumer and employment law class actions. Whether that is accurate at the macro level won’t be known for years. However, the question raised by Stolt-Nielsen, for the perspective of California litigation, is whether Stolt-Nielsen altered controlling California law negatively, or, perhaps unexpectedly, added strength to California’s approach to arbitration provisions.

Read More