Juarez et al v. Jani-King of California, Inc. et al
Filing
181
ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 176 Motion for Certificate of Appealability (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2012)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
11
v.
JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 09-03495 SC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C §
1292(b) AND STAYING FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL
14
15
Plaintiffs Alejandro Juarez, Maria Juarez, and Maria Portillo
16
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") purchased cleaning service franchises
17
from Defendant Jani-King of California, Inc., Jani-King, Inc., and
18
Jani-King International, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants").
19
cleaning service franchises turned out to be unprofitable, and
20
Plaintiffs subsequently brought this action against Defendants.
21
Among other things, Plaintiffs asserted claims under the California
22
Labor Code, alleging that they were misclassified as franchisees
23
because Defendants exercised such control over them so as to create
24
an employer-employee relationship.
The
25
On January 23, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Labor
26
Code claims when it granted in part and denied in part Defendants'
27
motion for summary judgment.
28
Decision).
ECF No. 168 (Summary Judgment
The Court, relying on the California Court of Appeal's
1
decision in Cislaw v. Southland Corporation, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1284
2
(Cal. Ct. App. 1992), held that "[a] franchisee must show that the
3
franchisor exercised 'control beyond that necessary to protect and
4
maintain its interest in its trademark, trade name, and good will'
5
to establish a prima facie case of an employer-employee
6
relationship."
7
Cal. App. 4th at 1296).
8
that it should apply the test enunciated by the Ninth Circuit in
9
Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2010), reasoning
Summary Judgment Decision at 8 (quoting Cislaw, 4
The Court rejected Plaintiffs' argument
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the Narayan test was inapposite in the franchise context.
11
9 n.2.
12
Id. at
Plaintiffs now move the Court to certify for interlocutory
13
appeal that portion of the Court's Summary Judgment Decision
14
dismissing Plaintiffs' Labor Code claims and to stay further
15
proceedings pending that appeal.
16
have filed an opposition and Plaintiffs have filed a reply.
17
No. 179 ("Opp'n"), 180 ("Reply").
18
1(b), the Court finds the Motion suitable for determination without
19
oral argument.
20
ECF No. 176 ("Mot.").
Defendants
ECF
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-
A district court may certify for appellate review any order
21
that, in the court's opinion, "[1] involves a controlling question
22
of law [2] as to which there is substantial ground for difference
23
of opinion and [3] [where] an immediate appeal from the order may
24
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."
25
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
26
to decide whether to grant a motion for certification.
27
Title Ins. Antitrust Litig., No. 08-01341 JSW, 2010 U.S. Dist.
28
LEXIS 28923, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2010).
District courts have substantial discretion
2
In re Cal.
1
The parties agree that the Court's Summary Judgment Decision
2
regarding Plaintiffs' Labor Code claims involves a controlling
3
question of law and that an immediate appeal may materially
4
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
5
2-3, Opp'n at 1.
6
order for a question to be 'controlling' is that resolution of the
7
issue on appeal could materially affect the outcome of the
8
litigation in the district court."
9
673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982).
The Court concurs.
See Mot. at
"[A]ll that must be shown in
In re Cement Antitrust Litig.,
In the instant action, the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Court's decision to apply the Cislaw "right-to-control" analysis
11
in the employment classification context is a controlling question
12
of law because it could affect the outcome of the summary decision
13
on Plaintiffs' Labor Code claims.
14
from the Court's Summary Judgment Decision would "materially
15
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."
16
Circuit reverses and holds that Plaintiffs' Labor Code claims
17
raise triable issues of fact, the Court can hold a single trial to
18
address all claims at once.
19
Further, an immediate appeal
If the Ninth
The parties disagree about whether there is substantial ground
20
for difference of opinion regarding the question of law at issue.
21
Having reviewed the papers, the Court finds that there is
22
substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding the
23
application of Cislaw to Plaintiffs' Labor Code claims.
24
Court acknowledged in its order denying class certification, the
25
controlling authority on this issue "is not entirely clear."
26
130 at 22-23.
27
conclusions as to what test should apply to employment
28
classification claims brought in the franchise context.
As the
ECF
Courts in other states have reached different
3
See Hayes
1
v. Enmon Enters., LLC, 10-CV-00382-CWR-LRA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
2
66736 (S.D. Miss. June 22, 2011); Awuah v. Coverall N. Am. Inc.,
3
707 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D. Mass. 2010); Coverall N. Am., Inc. v.
4
Division of Unemployment Assistance, 447 Mass. 852 (2006).
5
Further, the Ninth Circuit very recently issued an opinion in Ruiz
6
v. Affinity Logistics Corp., -- F.3d --, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS
7
2450, at *9 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2012), which may have some bearing
8
on this dispute.
United States District Court
For the foregoing reasons, the Court, in its discretion,
10
For the Northern District of California
9
GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
11
§ 1292(b) and STAYS this matter pending resolution of the
12
interlocutory appeal before the Ninth Circuit.
13
update the Court by joint submission within five court days of
14
resolution of the appeal, or every 120 days, whichever is sooner.
The parties shall
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
19
Dated:
February 16, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?