California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
June 25, 2015
RACHEL VERDUGO, Plaintiff and Appellant,
ALLIANTGROUP, L.P., Defendant and Respondent.
On the court’s own motion, it is ordered the opinion filed in the above-entitled matter on May 28, 2015,
237 Cal.App.4th 141; ___Cal.Rptr.3d ___ is hereby modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
1. On page 3 [237 Cal.App.4th 145, advance report, 3d full par., line 2], the first sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “The few cases Alliantgroup cites, ” insert the words “Labor Code” between the words “in the context of a” and “wage and hour dispute, ” so the sentence reads as follows:
The few cases Alliantgroup cites do not address how a Texas court will view a choice-of-law clause in the context of a Labor Code wage and hour dispute between a Texas employer and a California employee, and Alliantgroup fails to address the competing policies of these two states.
2. On page 3 [237 Cal.App.4th 145, advance report, 3d full par., line 6], the second sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “Alliantgroup could have eliminated any doubt, ” delete the words “failed to” and replace them with the words “it did not, ” so the sentence reads as follows:
Alliantgroup could have eliminated any doubt about which law would apply to Verdugo’s claims by stipulating to have the Texas courts apply California law, but it did not do so.
3. On page 3 [237 Cal.App.4th 145, advance report, 3d full par., lines 7-9], the third sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “Instead, Alliantgroup carefully phrased, ” delete the entire sentence and replace it with the following:
Instead, Alliantgroup acknowledged Texas might apply California law while simultaneously minimizing the significance of the California statutory rights on which Verdugo bases her claims.
4. On page 20 [237 Cal.App.4th 158, advance report, 2d full par., line 3], the first sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “Alliantgroup could have eliminated, ” delete the words “failed to” and replace them with the words “did not, ” so the sentence reads as follows:
Alliantgroup could have eliminated any uncertainty on which law a Texas court would apply by stipulating to have a Texas court apply California law in deciding Verdugo’s claims, but Alliantgroup did not do so.
5. On page 20 [237 Cal.App.4th 158, advance report, 2d full par., lines 4 and 6], the second sentence of the first full paragraph, starting with “Instead, Alliantgroup has carefully preserved, ” delete the words “carefully” and “seeking to, ” and replace the word “downplay” with “downplaying, ” so the sentence reads as follows:
Instead, Alliantgroup preserved its ability to argue to a Texas court that it should apply Texas law, and Alliantgroup has hinted at its intention to do so by downplaying the significance of the statutory rights Verdugo seeks to enforce through this action.
6. On page 23 [237 Cal.App.4th 160, advance report, 1st par., last line], at the end of the partial paragraph at the top of the page, add the following new footnote number 9:
Alliantgroup also relies on Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Leonard (Tex.Ct.App. 2003) 125 S.W.3d 55, and Caton v. Leach Corp. (5th Cir. 1990) 896 F.2d 939. These cases do not apply here because they do not involve the recovery of wages and other remedies under the Labor Code, and therefore do not involve the same underlying policies at issue in this case. Moreover, the Farmers Insurance Exchange case conducted a different analysis because the parties did not agree to a choice-of-law provision.
7. On page 25 [237 Cal.App.4th 162, advance report, footnote 9], renumber footnote No. 9 as footnote No. 10.
These modifications do not change the judgment.
The petition for rehearing filed by defendant and respondent Alliantgroup L.P. is DENIED. Alliantgroup requests rehearing to allow the parties to address whether Alliantgroup would stipulate to have a Texas court apply California law when deciding plaintiff and appellant Rachel Verdugo’s claims. The earlier order for supplemental briefing provided Alliantgroup that opportunity, and therefore rehearing is not required.