Kullar

Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.

Good Law
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 353·191 Cal. App. 4th 1201
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 18, 2011No. A127375; No. A127376California2,486 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pollak, J.

The defendant in these consolidated class actions appeals from an order denying its motion to disqualify the attorneys for parties who have objected to the proposed settlement agreement in the first of these cases and are the plaintiffs in the second action in which a class has not yet been *1203 certified. We agree with the trial court that the filing of the second action has not created a conflict of interest requiring counsel’s disqualification.

Background

This court previously vacated an order of the trial court approving a settlement of the class action brought on behalf of employees of Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (Foot Locker), against Foot Locker. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 20 ].) The appeal resulting in that disposition was prosecuted by the law firm of Qualls & Workman, LLP (Q&W), on behalf of three objectors to the settlement, Crystal Echeverría, John Kissinger and Nichole Payton. This court held that the information that had been presented to the trial court was insufficient to support its determination that the settlement agreement was fair, reasonable and adequate, and we “remand[ed] the matter to permit the…

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.