Petitioner's insurer hired a law firm to defend him and subsequently also hired an independent counsel

Petitioner's insurer hired a law firm to defend him and subsequently also hired an independent counsel. The insurer's law firm withdrew from representation because of a potential conflict of interest. The real party moved to disqualify the independent counsel. The Superior Court of Orange County (California) granted the motion. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate to direct the superior court to vacate its disqualification order die to violation of california minimum wage san diego.

Petitioner's insurer hired a law firm to defend him. Subsequently, the insurer decided to appoint an independent counsel to represent petitioner. The insurer kept the law firm it had originally hired for petitioner to represent its own interests. One of the insurer's law firm's attorneys agreed to represent the independent counsel at some depositions. However, the attorney discovered, before suit was filed, that the real parties in interest had contacted one of the partners of the insurer's law firm about possible representation. Ultimately, the real parties did not retain the insurer's law firm. Nonetheless, after the insurer's law firm realized what happened, it withdrew from representation of the insurer. The real parties then moved to disqualify the independent counsel, asserting there was a presumption that the law firm divulged confidential information to the independent counsel. The appellate court declined to extend the doctrine of imputed knowledge to automatically disqualify the independent counsel, when the insurer's attorney merely covered a few depositions for the independent counsel, and, unbeknownst to him, his firm had a conflict of interest.

The writ issued directing the superior court to vacate its order disqualifying the independent counsel and to enter a new and different order denying real parties' motion for disqualification.

Real party in interest employee brought suit, as an individual and as a putative class representative, alleging petitioner store violated wage orders for non-exempt employees and committed unlawful business practices. The store demurred to the complaint. Respondent superior court overruled the demurrer. The store sought a writ of mandate.

The employee, a former manager, alleged that the store was wrongfully deducting expenses from the wages of its employees, which the law required to be borne by employers. The appellate court determined that the employee had stated a cause of action for violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 3751. As to non-exempt employees, alleged deductions based on cash and merchandise shortages was sufficient to withstand demurrer, despite the store's argument that a profit-based plan was beneficial for all employees. The appellate court disagreed with the store that its employees were not suffering a reduction in earnings. On the other hand, for exempt employees, to whom the wage order, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8., § 110701(A), did not apply, the result was different. Nothing in the Labor Code itself, unlike the wage orders applicable to non-exempt employees, expressly prohibited deductions from wages for cash or merchandise shortages. Because the extent to which the employee and the members of the class he proposed to represent were exempt employees could not be determined at this point, the complaint survived the challenge on demurrer.

The writ of mandate was denied.