Filed 2/18/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JILL LAFACE, B305494 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC632679) v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia Nieto, Judge. Affirmed. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, André E. Jardini, K.L. Myles, Greta T. Hutton; Capstone Law, Ryan Y. Wu, Melissa Grant, John Stobart; Law Offices of Michael V. Jehdian and Michael V. Jehdian for Plaintiff and Appellant. Morrison & Foerster, Tritia M. Murata, Wendy J. Ray, Karen J. Kubin, James R. Sigel and Michael F. Qian for Defendant and Respondent. Fisher & Phillips, Christopher C. Hoffman, Megan E. Walker and Darcey M. Groden for California New Car Dealers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Jill La Face appeals from the judgment entered following a bench trial in her representative action against Ralphs Grocery Company under the Private Attorneys General Act seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of labor law workplace seating requirements. We reject her contention that she was entitled to a jury trial and affirm the trial court’s finding that Ralphs was not required to provide seating for its cashiers. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 The Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq. (PAGA)) allows employees to bring a civil action for penalties against their employer on behalf of themselves and other current and former “aggrieved” employees for Labor Code-related violations. 2 (§ 2699, subds. (a),(f).) Appellant Jill La Face worked as a cashier at a store owned by respondent Ralphs Grocery Company. She brought a PAGA action against Ralphs on behalf of herself and other current and former Ralphs cashiers, alleging that Ralphs violated an Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order that required employers to provide suitable seating when the nature of the work reasonably permitted the use of seats, or, for a job where standing was required, to provide seating for employee use when their use did not interfere with an employee’s duties. 3 1 Plaintiff and appellant Jill La Face died while this appeal was pending and before her appellant’s reply brief could be filed. Appellant’s counsel filed a reply brief on her behalf, prompting both respondent’s motion to strike the reply brief and a motion by appellant’s counsel to substitute another former Ralphs employee as the appellant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.36.) Rather than determine whether substitution is permissible in this type of action, we exercise our discretion to consider the reply brief and decide the appeal on its merits because it presents a continuing issue of public interest. (Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1; People v. Nottoli (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 531, 535, fn. 3; Dority v. Superior Court (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 273, 276.) Accordingly, we deny respondent’s motion to strike the reply brief and deny without prejudice the motion to substitute in a new appellant on the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals