Fear Not Law Articles: Balandran v. Labor Ready, Inc.

Balandran v. Labor Ready, Inc.

Filed 8/1/06 Balandran v. Labor Ready, Inc. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARISOL BALANDRAN et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

LABOR READY, INC.,

Defendants and Respondents.

B181473 c/w B181458

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. Nos. BC278551, BC188428)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anthony J. Mohr, Judge. Dismissed as moot.

Perkins Coie, David R. Ongaro and Kyann Kalin for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Morris Polich & Purdy, Richard H. Nakamura Jr. and David J. Vendler; Pierry Shenoi, Allan A. Shenoi and Linda Pierce for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________________________

Believing plaintiffs' counsel in a class action had an actual conflict of interest by representing two cross-defendants as well as the plaintiff class, defendants sought an order disqualifying counsel. The trial court granted the motion in part, concluding a potential for a conflict existed and requiring plaintiffs' counsel to choose between representing the class and representing the cross-defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel chose to continue representing the class, and withdrew from the representation of the crossâ€‘defendants. Defendants appealed, arguing plaintiffs' counsel possessed an actual conflict and should have been disqualified from representing both the class and the cross-defendants. While the appeal was pending, plaintiffs' counsel withdrew from the representation of the class. As plaintiffs' counsel no longer represents any party in the litigation, the issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to order disqualification is moot. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Labor Ready^[1] is a service which provides temporary labor to its customers on an as-needed basis. Labor Ready's business model works on the premise that the workers are employed by Labor Ready, not its customers. On July 9, 2002, female applicants brought a class action against Labor Ready and one of its customers, claiming that Labor Ready illegally agreed to send only male workers to that customer's job site (the â€

Description	Believing plaintiffs' counsel in a class action had an actual conflict of interest by representing two cross-defendants as well as the plaintiff class, defendants sought an order disqualifying counsel. The trial court granted the motion in part, concluding a potential for a conflict existed and requiring plaintiffs' counsel to choose between representing the class and representing the cross-defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel chose to continue representing the class, and withdrew from the representation of the crossâ€‘defendants. Defendants appealed, arguing plaintiffs' counsel possessed an actual conflict and should have been disqualified from representing both the class and the cross-defendants. While the appeal was pending, plaintiffs' counsel withdrew from the representation of the class. As plaintiffs' counsel no longer represents any party in the litigation, the issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to order disqualification is moot. Court therefore dismiss the appeal.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.