Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, ET AL., CASE No. 09-cv-03495-YGR 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Vs. ORDER VACATING STAY OF CASE 8 JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., 9 Defendants. 10 On September 24, 2019, the Ninth Circuit entered an order in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro 11 Franchising Int’l, Inc., Case No. 17-16096, Dkt. No. 117, certifying to the California Supreme a 12 || Court the question of whether Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. g 13 || 2018) applies retroactively. On November 20, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the 14 || Ninth Circuit’s request for certification. Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., Case No. 3 15 $258191. On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision 16 confirming that its “decision in Dynamex applies retroactively to all nonfinal cases that predate the 5 7 effective date of the Dynamex decision.” 5 18 In light of these new developments, the Court vacates the STAY this action. Parties shall 19 meet and confer and file a joint statement regarding the impact of the California Supreme Court’s decision on this action, including whether the parties require a case management conference. A

compliance hearing shall be held on the Court’s 9:01 a.m. calendar on Friday, February 12, 0 2021 via the Zoom platform. Five (5) business days prior to the date of the compliance hearing, the parties shall file the joint statement. If compliance is complete, the parties need not appear, °° and the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. IT Is SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: January 15, 2021 27 ; 4 YVONNE KB Rooun®? 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE