Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01431/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01431-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA CLEMENS, JORDEN

SIMENSEN, and ADRIA DESPRES,

individuals, for themselves and all

members of the putative class and on behalf

of aggrieved employees pursuant to the

Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”),

Plaintiffs,

 v.

HAIR CLUB FOR MEN, LLC, a Delaware

corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-01431 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO APPOINT ADRIA

DESPRES AS ADDITIONAL

CLASS REPRESENTATIVE

In their class certification motion, plaintiffs sought to have Teresa Clemens, Jorden

Simensen, and Adria Despres appointed as class representatives. The time period covered by

the certified class began on March 27, 2014, one year before plaintiffs commenced this action,

although plaintiffs sought to certify a class dating back four years before the complaint. 

In her declaration submitted in support of the motion for class certification, Despres

stated that her employment ended on May 31, 2013. Accordingly, because it appeared she did

not work for Hair Club during the certified class period (and thus lacked claims typical of the

class), she was not appointed as a class representative.

Plaintiffs now seek to have Adria Despres appointed as an additional class

representative, noting that her declaration inaccurately stated the end date of her employment

Case 3:15-cv-01431-WHA Document 71 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

due to counsel’s error. Despres has submitted a new declaration averring that she was

employed by Hair Club until April 13, 2015.

Despres’s failure to recognize this error in her own declaration casts doubt on her

adequacy as a class representative. Moreover, plaintiffs offer no explanation of their need for

an additional class representative, and the class was certified although she could not serve as a

representative. Accordingly, there is no good cause to modify the order certifying the class to

appoint Despres as an additional class representative. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-01431-WHA Document 71 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 2