Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 353
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Foot Locker appeals an order denying disqualification of Qualls & Workman (Q&W) in Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. and Echeverría II, where objectors to a proposed settlement in Kullar also sought to represent putative class members in Echeverría II.
- The court previously vacated a trial court order approving the Kullar settlement and remanded for reconsideration of fairness and adequacy in light of potential value and likelihood of success for class members.
- Echeverría I, a related putative class action, was stayed due to the Kullar settlement pending, and Echeverría II was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court while Kullar was on appeal.
- A July 29, 2009 stay on Echeverría II was entered due to pending identical claims in Echeverría I, with final Kullar settlement approval occurring October 22, 2009 and Echeverría II proceedings resuming afterward.
- On December 2, 2009 Foot Locker moved to disqualify Q&W, arguing a conflict of interest from representing both Echeverría II objectors and Kullar settlement objectors; the trial court denied the motions, and Foot Locker appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict of interest from dual representation | Echeverría II putative class members and Kullar objectors have antagonistic interests. | No conflict; Q&W advocated consistent positions and no confidential information was misused. | No disqualification required; no adverse-conflict exists. |
| Existence of attorney-client relationship with putative class | Putative class members in Echeverría II are represented by Q&W and thus create fiduciary duties. | No client relationship yet since no class certified; duties do not arise. | No attorney-client relationship yet; fiduciary duties not triggered at this stage. |
| Scope of fiduciary obligations when class not certified | Putative class members warrant fiduciary protections by class counsel opposing the Kullar settlement. | Any fiduciary duties are limited and do not preclude advising on settlement viability. | Fiduciary duties exist conceptually but do not mandate disqualification here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 168 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (remand for fairness/adequacy considering potential recovery value)
- Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.3d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (class members not yet clients; no representation assumed before certification)
- Sharp v. Next Entertainment Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 410 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (unnamed class members ordinarily not clients for conflicts rule)
- In re GMC Pick-up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) (class attorneys owe fiduciary duties to the class as filed)
- In re Corn Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, 748 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1984) (recognizes class counsel duties in conflict contexts)
- In re “Agent Orange” Product Liability Litigation, 800 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1986) (discussion of attorney conflicts among class members)