Parris

Parris v. Superior Court

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 4th 285·135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 90·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 793·2003 Daily Journal DAR 5759·8 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1304
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 29, 2003B164375California5,437 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

Cynthia Parris and Willie Lopez filed a lawsuit “on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated” against Lowe’s H.I.W., Inc., alleging violations of California’s wage and hour laws regarding overtime compensation. Parris and Lopez thereafter moved (a) for leave to communicate with potential class members prior to class certification and for approval of the content of their proposed communication and (b) to compel discovery of the names and addresses of potential class members. The trial court denied both motions. Parris and Lopez petitioned this court for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to reverse its orders, and we issued an order to show cause.

Precertification communication with potential class members, like prefiling communication, is constitutionally protected speech. A blanket requirement of judicial approval for such communications would constitute an impermissible prior restraint on speech. Accordingly, Parris and Lopez’s motion for judicial approval of their proposed communications was unnecessary; and the trial court should have dismissed the motion on that ground, rather than denying it. The trial court also erred in denying Parris and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.