This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a procedurally complex case stemming from a group of hairstylists’ claim in quantum meruit that Supercuts failed to pay them for work done “off the clock.” The case was originally filed as a breach of contract class action in 1993; this morning’s opinion marks the fourth time the Third Court has written on it.
The opinion spends a large amount of time reciting the unusual and complex procedural history; I will not recap it here. The single issue resolved this morning, however, has to do with the potential interlocutory appeal of orders certifying or refusing to certify a class, and the circumstances under which a party may be excused for failing to file its notice of appeal on time. It will likely be extremely useful for anyone who has a case in which the timing of the notice of appeal is an issue, or in which there is uncertainty as to which interlocutory order a party seeks to appeal.
Rainbow Group v. Wagoner, et al., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App. – Austin 2007) (Cause No. 03-06-00138-CV)
Technorati Tags:
litigation, Third Court of Appeals, law
