Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:09-cv-03495
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Juarez v. Jani-King, Judge Rogers vacated the stay and ordered the parties to address a California Supreme Court decision’s effect on the case.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc., who were required to address the California Supreme Court’s retroactivity ruling and submit a joint statement.
What happened
In Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc., the case had been stayed while courts considered whether a California Supreme Court decision applied retroactively.
The California Supreme Court later confirmed that the decision applied retroactively to all nonfinal cases predating its effective date. The court therefore vacated the stay and ordered the parties to discuss the decision’s effect on this case and file a joint statement.
Judge Yvonne Rogers scheduled a compliance hearing for February 12, 2021, but said it would be canceled if the parties completed the required filing.
The detailed version
- Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc. · No. 4:09-cv-03495
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 15, 2021
Background
The case had been stayed while the courts considered whether the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court applied retroactively. In a separate case, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to decide that question. On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that Dynamex applied retroactively to all nonfinal cases that predated the decision’s effective date.
Order
In light of that ruling, the court vacated the stay in this action. It ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint statement explaining the California Supreme Court’s decision’s impact on the case, including whether a case-management conference was needed.
Next Step
The court scheduled a compliance hearing for February 12, 2021, by Zoom. The parties were required to file their joint statement five business days before the hearing. If they completed the filing, they did not need to appear, and the hearing would be taken off the calendar.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.