Sales v. United Road Services, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs brought a class action on behalf of truck drivers who contract with United Road Services, Inc. They challenged their classification as independent contractors rather than employees. The court had certified a class asserting claims involving business-expense reimbursement, minimum wages, wage statements, wages due at termination, and California’s unfair-competition law. Denson M. Sales and Andre Clemons were appointed as class representatives. The parties later filed a notice of settlement, and the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement. Sales and Clemons did not sign the settlement agreement and filed objections.

Motion and positions

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs asked to withdraw only from representing Sales and Clemons. They argued that continuing to represent both the objecting named plaintiffs and the rest of the class would be unreasonably difficult and would create a conflict at the final settlement-approval hearing. They also argued that Sales and Clemons had received notice and could still opt out of or object to the settlement.

Sales and Clemons opposed withdrawal. They argued that counsel could continue representing them because they had fulfilled their duties as class representatives and were objecting in good faith for the class’s best interests. They also said that other class members shared their concerns and urged the court to let them remain class representatives.

Legal standard

The court explained that attorneys may not withdraw from a case until the court authorizes withdrawal after the required notice. Under the cited California professional-conduct rule, withdrawal may be permitted when a client makes it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to represent the client effectively. Courts also consider the reasons for withdrawal, possible prejudice to other litigants, harm to the administration of justice, and delay.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that class counsel could not represent both the settlement class and named plaintiffs who objected to the settlement. If withdrawal were not allowed, counsel would be placed in the untenable position of advocating both for and against the settlement at the final approval hearing. The court described withdrawal as the appropriate and ethical way to resolve the conflict between the objectors’ position and the position of the other class members represented by counsel.

Disposition

The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing Sales and Clemons. The court noted that their objections did not automatically disqualify them as class representatives and that counsel had not asked separately to remove them. However, because a person without a lawyer generally cannot represent a class, the court stated that counsel’s withdrawal would lead to Sales and Clemons no longer serving as class representatives.