Motions to Stay Pending Brinker
February 04, 2009
We know of several judges who are encouraging parties to delay briefing schedules on class certifications pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in Brinker v. Superior Court. The Court of Appeal has granted a request to stay the proceedings in Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart. Do any readers know of formal motions that have been brought in Superior Court to impose a stay pending the decision in Brinker v. Superior Court? If you do, leave a comment or send us an email.
I've already seen several of these motions in cases at my firm and heard judicial suggestions that a stay is appropriate or likely. I've also seen the Sepulveda stay used as authority in support of such a request to stay. Unlike the Proposition 64 or Murphy experiences, where courts just plowed ahead, knowing full well that they had a 50/50 shot of reversal, this round seems different. The arguments about retroactivity in the Proposition 64 days were strident but civil (at least the ones I saw at the time). The polarization that I see in the wage & hour field has an increasingly emotional tone to it. I suspect, but cannot prove, that the wage & hour battles in California are so much more widespread that a form of argument fatigue is settling over the terrain, and vitriol on the part of counsel and parties occurs with greater frequency as a result of trying to escalate arguments to the next level. It's starting to sound more like politics than respectful disagreement over the correct application of law.
Posted by: The Complex Litigator | February 04, 2009 at 10:58 PM