Clemens et al v. Hair Club for Men, LLC

Filing 71

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO APPOINT ADRIA DESPRES AS ADDITIONAL CLASS REPRESENTATIVE by Hon. William Alsup denying 67 Administrative Motion to add class representative.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

TERESA CLEMENS, JORDEN
SIMENSEN, and ADRIA DESPRES,
individuals, for themselves and all
members of the putative class and on behalf
of aggrieved employees pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”),
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

No. C 15-01431 WHA

v.
HAIR CLUB FOR MEN, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO APPOINT ADRIA
DESPRES AS ADDITIONAL
CLASS REPRESENTATIVE

Defendants.
/

18
19

In their class certification motion, plaintiffs sought to have Teresa Clemens, Jorden

20

Simensen, and Adria Despres appointed as class representatives. The time period covered by

21

the certified class began on March 27, 2014, one year before plaintiffs commenced this action,

22

although plaintiffs sought to certify a class dating back four years before the complaint.

23

In her declaration submitted in support of the motion for class certification, Despres

24

stated that her employment ended on May 31, 2013. Accordingly, because it appeared she did

25

not work for Hair Club during the certified class period (and thus lacked claims typical of the

26

class), she was not appointed as a class representative.

27
28

Plaintiffs now seek to have Adria Despres appointed as an additional class
representative, noting that her declaration inaccurately stated the end date of her employment

1

due to counsel’s error. Despres has submitted a new declaration averring that she was

2

employed by Hair Club until April 13, 2015.

3

Despres’s failure to recognize this error in her own declaration casts doubt on her

4

adequacy as a class representative. Moreover, plaintiffs offer no explanation of their need for

5

an additional class representative, and the class was certified although she could not serve as a

6

representative. Accordingly, there is no good cause to modify the order certifying the class to

7

appoint Despres as an additional class representative. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: April 28, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2