Bridgeford

Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp.

Good Law
135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 905·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 26·202 Cal. App. 4th 1034
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 18, 2012No. B227486California3,536 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Croskey, J.

Dan Bridgeford and Lucianna Tarin appeal the dismissal of their complaint after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. They contend the trial court misapplied the doctrine of collateral estoppel in holding that their class claims are precluded, and there is no basis to dismiss their individual claims or their representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). 1 With respect to their class claims, we agree with plaintiffs’ argument; defendants concede that there is no basis to dismiss the individual and PAGA claims. We follow Smith v. Bayer Corp. (2011) 564 U.S._[ 180 L.Ed.2d 34 , 131 S.Ct. 2368 ], in holding that the unnamed putative members of a class that was never certified cannot be bound by collateral estoppel. We therefore will reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Present Complaint

Bridgeford and Tarin filed a class action complaint in May 2010 against Pacific Health Corporation; Anaheim General Hospital; Jupiter Bellflower Doctors Hospital; Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP; Los Angeles Doctors Partnership, LP; Los Angeles Doctors Corporation; Los…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.