Torok v. Vertiv Corporation

Background

Lawrence Torok filed a proposed wage-and-hour class action against Vertiv Corporation. He alleged, among other things, that Vertiv failed to provide meal and rest breaks and overtime pay required by California’s Labor Code. Torok worked for Vertiv from October 2018 through August 2023 as a Customer Engineer III and was generally a field employee. He sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

Vertiv opposed certification, arguing that Torok was not an adequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(4). Vertiv pointed to what it described as at least three felony matters in Placer County Superior Court. After the court ordered a sworn declaration, Torok’s counsel reported that Torok recalled two prior felony convictions, a 2015 stalking-related conviction or charge, and another conviction mentioned at oral argument. The opinion states that the full extent of Torok’s criminal record remained unknown. Counsel also reported that Torok was facing pending felony charges involving a ghost gun, drugs, and drug paraphernalia.

Vertiv also asserted that it had terminated Torok for taking a company van for personal use, using a company fuel card, and failing to return the van, tools, and electronic devices. A Vertiv service technician described the condition of the van after Torok’s employment. Torok did not rebut these assertions in his reply. Torok also failed to attend the class-certification hearing, although his counsel attended.

Analysis

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that a proposed class representative fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The court explained that a class representative assumes fiduciary duties toward absent class members, including an important role in deciding whether to settle the case.

The court held that Torok was not fit to serve in that fiduciary role. It relied on his multiple felony convictions, pending felony charges, and the incomplete account of his criminal history. The court stated that a convicted felon several times over should not be placed in the position of making settlement decisions for a class.

The court separately concluded that Torok’s criminal record, employment-related conduct, and resulting credibility problems would prejudice the proposed class. In the court’s view, those issues could weaken the class’s case at trial and reduce the value of any settlement. The court rejected the argument that class counsel and judicial review of any settlement would sufficiently address the problem because Rule 23 requires an adequate representative as an additional safeguard.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup denied the motion for class certification. The opinion does not state that the underlying wage-and-hour claims were adjudicated on their merits.