Reed

Reed v. Livingston Auto Center, Inc.

Good Law
146 F. App'x 93
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 4, 2005No. 04-35318; D.C. No. CV-03-00074-RFCCalifornia357 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

While claimants are not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing in the courts, it is clear that plaintiffs cannot pursue relief in successive forums. Von Petersdorff v. Kenyon Noble Lumber Co., 325 Mont. 94 , 103 P.3d 1082, 1085 (2004)(“a claimant under the Act has the option of seeking redress in either administrative proceedings or in the district court.” (emphasis in original)).

Even in the absence of this precedent, it is clear that Reed’s claims were barred by res judicata. Reed had already received the full amount of overtime wages she was owed; this determination would be preclusive in any future proceeding. Reed was already found to be barred from liquidated damages because of the clear good faith of her employer; this determination would be preclusive in any future proceeding. The only relief that Reed did not receive was an award of attorneys fees. State law specifically provides that no attorneys fees are available for any work done in an administrative proceeding, rather only those fees accrued in anticipation of a district court or appellate court proceeding are due. See Chagnon v. Hardy Construction Co., 208 Mont. 420 , 680 P.2d 932,…

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.