Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:19-cv-07293
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc., Judge Corley ordered defendants to explain their noncompliance or risk default.
The defendants—Best-Line Shades, Inc., Best-Line, Inc., and Jill Schaffer—were ordered to respond and obtain the required representation; the plaintiffs' request for default was not granted in this order.
What happened
In Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc., Dolores Valenzuela, Adela Flores, and Raymunda Menjivar sued their former employer and its owner over unpaid wages and penalties under federal and California law. The court had certified the case as a class and collective action and ordered defendants to provide a class list.
Defense counsel withdrew after reporting that the Best-Line entities no longer existed and that Jill Schaffer had stopped communicating and paying legal fees. The court then ordered the defendants to obtain new counsel within 30 days. More than 30 days passed without an attorney appearing for the entities or Schaffer, and Schaffer did not appear on her own.
Judge Corley ordered the defendants to show cause by February 15, 2022, why default should not be entered for failing to provide the class list, participate in the case, and obtain required representation. The court did not enter default in this order and warned that failure to respond could lead to default without further warning.
The detailed version
- Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-07293
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Jan. 25, 2022
Background
Dolores Valenzuela, Adela Flores, and Raymunda Menjivar brought a wage-and-hour class and collective action against their former employer, Best-Line Shades, Inc., Best-Line, Inc., and Jill Schaffer, identified as the owner and president. The claims seek unpaid wages and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor laws.
On August 10, 2021, the court certified a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court later ordered defendants to provide a copy of the class list so that notice could be sent to class members. Defendants did not comply.
Representation and Noncompliance
Defense counsel moved to withdraw from representing the Best-Line entities because counsel reported that the entities no longer existed as legal entities. Counsel also moved to withdraw from representing Schaffer because she repeatedly failed to communicate with counsel and stopped paying legal fees in violation of the written representation agreement.
On December 2, 2021, the court granted counsel's withdrawal motion and ordered defendants to obtain new counsel within 30 days. The court allowed Schaffer to appear without a lawyer but explained that the Best-Line entities had to appear through an attorney. No lawyer appeared for either the entities or Schaffer within the 30-day period, and Schaffer did not appear without a lawyer or otherwise communicate with the court.
Order to Show Cause
The plaintiffs moved for defendants' default. Instead of entering default immediately, the court ordered defendants to show cause why default should not be entered based on their failure to provide the class list, participate in the action, and comply with the representation requirements.
The court explained that default may be imposed as a sanction for violating local rules requiring representation by counsel and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) for failing to comply with a court order. The defendants were ordered to file a written response by February 15, 2022. Any response had to include an attorney's appearance for the Best-Line entities and either an attorney's appearance or an appearance without a lawyer for Schaffer. The court warned that failure to comply could result in entry of default without further warning.
The court also directed former defense counsel, Leiann Laiks of Fusion Legal, PC, to notify the defendants of the order and file proof of service within three days. The order itself did not enter default.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.