Opinion
8:20-cv-00776-JLS-KES
08-15-2022
Nathan Christensen v. Carter's Retail, Inc. et al
PRESENT: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN ESTRADA V. ROYALTY CARPET MILLS, 511 P.3d 191 (CAL. 2022)
On June 30, 2022, the Ninth Circuit held in Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 39 F.4th 575 (9th Cir. 2022) that it would be “inappropriate to allow federal courts to treat a freestanding manageability requirement as a dispositive consideration in PAGA cases” relying, in part, on the California Court of Appeal's decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal.App. 5th 685 (2022). In Estrada, the California Court of Appeal held that courts do not “have inherent authority to strike unmanageable PAGA claims,” a holding opposite of that reached in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal.App. 5th 746 (2021). Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal.App. 5th 685, 697 (2022).
Just before the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hamilton, the California Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for review in Estrada. 511 P.3d 191 (Cal. 2022). Moreover, there is a pending Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc in Hamilton. See Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 19-56161, Doc. 85.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to show cause, in writing, why this matter should not be stayed pending the California Supreme Court's decision in Estrada. The parties are directed to file their responses within five days of this Order's issuance.