Walker v. Apple CA4/1
4 Cal. App. 5th 1098
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Stacey and Tyler Walker (represented by Hogue & Belong) filed a putative wage-and-hour class action against Apple alleging failure to provide final wage statements upon termination via Apple’s myPage portal.
- Nine months earlier, Hogue & Belong represented a certified class in Felczer v. Apple, a broad wage-and-hour suit covering many nonexempt employees; class notice identified ~20,000 members and nearly 20,000 remained in the class.
- Apple submitted a declaration from HR manager Marnie Olson identifying Meg Karn, the Carlsbad store leader who handled the Walkers’ terminations and thus was a member of the Felczer certified class.
- Apple moved to disqualify the Firm from representing the Walkers on the ground that the Firm concurrently represented Karn (an unnamed Felczer class member) and would likely need to cross-examine her, creating an irreconcilable conflict.
- The trial court disqualified the Firm, concluding class certification plus undisputed evidence of Karn’s identity and role meant the Firm represented Karn for conflict purposes and that a disqualifying conflict existed; the court applied automatic disqualification.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (on this record) Karn was a Firm client for conflict analysis, Karn’s interests conflicted with the Walkers’, and automatic disqualification applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unnamed, certified class member (Karn) is a client of class counsel for conflict analysis | Walker: Unnamed class members are ordinarily not clients; class certification alone shouldn't make them clients, impractical when identities unknown | Apple: Post-certification, class counsel represents absent class members for certain purposes; Karn’s identity and role are known so she is a client for conflicts | Court: On this record (certified class + undisputed identity/role), Karn is a client for conflict purposes and court did not err |
| Whether Karn’s interests conflict with the Walkers’ interests | Walker: Any conflict is speculative; no actual, existing conflict; can be cured by independent co-counsel | Apple: Olson declaration shows Apple will blame Karn for failures, so Firm may have to cross-examine its own client and impair Karn’s interests | Court: Substantial evidence of a real conflict—Firm might be required to impeach or pressure Karn, harming her employment interests; not speculative |
| Whether automatic disqualification is required in class-action concurrent representation cases | Walker: Class-action context may warrant a balancing test (Radcliffe) rather than automatic disqualification | Apple: The conflict here is the classic disqualifying type (would force counsel to act adverse to a current client) so automatic rule applies | Court: Automatic disqualification applies here; Radcliffe inapplicable because this is not an intraclass settlement-management conflict but a direct, classic concurrent-representation conflict |
| Whether the disqualification motion was premature or an abuse of process | Walker: Premature because Karn may never testify or case may settle; motion is tactical delay | Apple: Evidence shows likely testimony and real conflict; timely and necessary | Court: Not premature; allowing delay would undermine rule and evidence shows likely conflict; not tactical abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1135 (Cal. 1999) (disqualification balances client choice against duty of loyalty and integrity of the bar)
- Flatt v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994) (concurrent representation usually triggers per se disqualification)
- Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 410 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (disqualification rules in class actions require case-specific evaluation)
- Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino, 89 Cal.App.4th 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (hypothetical conflicts do not require disqualification)
- Hernandez v. Paicius, 109 Cal.App.4th 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (disqualifying conflict where counsel would be forced to undermine their own client on the stand)
- Radcliffe v. Hernandez, 818 F.3d 537 (9th Cir. 2016) (federal appellate decision applying a balancing test in certain class-action conflicts; distinguished by this court)