Nathan Christensen v. Carter's Retail, Inc. et al, No. 8:2020cv00776 - Document 55 (C.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN ESTRADA V. ROYALTY CARPET MILLS, 511 P.3d 191 (CAL. 2022) by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to show cause, in writing, why this matter should not be stayed pending the California Supreme Courts decision in Estrada. The parties are directed to file their responses within five days of this Orders issuance. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

Download PDF
Nathan Christensen v. Carter's Retail, Inc. et al Doc. 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 8:20-cv-00776-JLS-KES Title: Nathan Christensen v. Carter's Retail, Inc. et al Date: August 15, 2022 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE V.R. Vallery Deputy Clerk N/A Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: Not Present Not Present 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. ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 8:20-cv-00776-JLS-KES Date: August 15, 2022 Title: Nathan Christensen v. Carter's Retail, Inc. et al 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. Initials of Deputy Clerk: vrv ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.