Sablowsky
Sablowsky v. Auto-Chlor System, LLC
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK SABLOWSKY, et al., Case No. 23-cv-02555-AGT
Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
v. SANCTIONS
AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 16 Defendants.
The Court denies defendants’ motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs’ counsel didn’t unlawfully solicit potential members of the proposed FLSA collective action, as defendants contend. * * * In a collective action, the attorneys for the named plaintiffs are not barred from com- municating with potential collective members. Courts, in appropriate circumstances, can place limits on these communications. See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 169– 72 (1989). But here, no such limits have been put in place yet. This doesn’t mean any communications are allowed. If an attorney solicits potential collective members, offering to provide legal services, the solicitations must comply with state rules of professional conduct. See Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48, 62 (2013) (noting that attorney solicitation is “regulated by state bars or their governing bodies”). Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case arguably did solicit potential…