ESTRADA v. ROYALTY CARPET MILLS (2022)

Defendant's petition for review is granted.

The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Do trial courts have inherent authority to ensure that claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) will be manageable at trial, and to strike or narrow such claims if they cannot be managed?

Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 76 Cal.App.5th 685, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)

Plaintiffs' petition for review is denied.

The requests for an order directing depublication of the opinion are denied.

Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins and Guerrero, JJ.