Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01179611, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

1.Plaintiffs Rolando Viramontes, Juan Vaquerano, Manuel Castro, and Alonso Jimenez's  Notice of Motion and Motion For Class Certification ROA 298

2. Status Conference

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is CONTINUED to September 15, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX-104 to give Plaintiffs and their counsel an opportunity to address several issues, including demonstrating that they can adequately represent the putative class in this matter. As to the adequacy of representation issue, The Rutter Group Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶14:36 explains:

The prospective class representative must file a declaration stating that the person desires to represent the class and understands the fiduciary obligations of serving as class representative. Counsel's declaration to that effect will not suffice. [Jones v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (2013) 221 CA4th 986, 998, 164 CR3d 633, 643; Imperial County Sheriff's Ass'n v. County of Imperial (2023) 87 CA5th 898, 919-920, 303 CR3d 875, 894-895—Ps failed to meet burden to show they were adequate representatives of class where they failed to file declarations to that effect, but failure did not justify denial of class certification motion, and trial court should have allowed Ps an opportunity to submit supporting declarations from proposed class representatives]

As far as the Court can determine, no such declaration has been presented to the Court. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to provide evidence of their qualifications and competency to act as class counsel.

Two other issues also should be addressed. First, in their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege fraud in connection with the application for certain unemployment insurance benefits. (Complaint ¶ 25) As far as the Court can tell, this alleged fraud is not the subject of the class certification motion. If that assumption is incorrect, then Plaintiffs must inform the Court of the specific evidence supporting this claim and why it is appropriate for class treatment.

Second, Plaintiffs name Hootan Ataian as a defendant and refer to him as the owner and CEO of the three alleged joint employers. Since Ataian is not alleged to be one of the joint employers, is there any evidence that he employed any of the putative class members and, if so, can Plaintiffs prove such employment as to each class member without individualized proof?

Plaintiff shall file a brief and any accompanying evidence responding only to these issues by August 18, 2023. Defendant may file a response to this brief by September 1, 2023.