Walker

Walker v. Apple CA4/1

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 924·209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 319·4 Cal. App. 5th 1098·2016 WL 5404080·26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1762
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 2016D069713California6,290 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

—Stacey Walker and Tyler Walker (together, the Walkers), the plaintiffs in this putative class action against their former employer, Apple, Inc. (Apple), appeal the trial court’s order disqualifying their counsel, Hogue & Belong (the Firm). The trial court found automatic disqualification was required on the basis the Firm had a conflict of interest arising from its concurrent representation of the putative class in this case and the certified class in another wage and hour class action pending against Apple (Felczer v. Apple, Inc. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, No. 37-2011-00102573-CU-OE-CTL) (F elczer)). Specifically, based on the parties’ litigation strategies and evidence Apple submitted in support of its disqualification motion, the trial court concluded that to advance the interests of its clients in this case, the Firm would need to cross-examine a client in the Felczer class (the Walkers’ store manager) in a manner adverse to that client.

On appeal, the Walkers contend the trial court erred by concluding (1) the store manager, as an unnamed member of the Felczer class, is a Firm client; (2) the Walkers’ and the store manager’s interests conflict; and (3)…

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.